It's very simple E = m c² or m = E/c² i.e. matter and energy is the same thing.

JES

A rather simple (and somewhat naive but nearly quite accurate IMHO) set of anwer is

1. Energy is 'inherent ability' to do work, work here is force times displacement (along direction of force), can be infinitesimally summed or integrated. Classical and Relativistic KE expression (and mass-energy eqivalence, also sourced from Lorentz transform) comes from force times displacement, so does Potential energy from Gallileo's Falling body 'laws' that are recoverable from Newton's 2nd law (note before this law, there was no numerical quantification of force as well). Thermal energy comes from 'conservation of energy' principle, fricational heating and specific heat, chemical energy can come from either energy conservation and a calculation to generate heat energy. Electric potential enegry and voltage comes from force-displace of charged particle, Magnetic potential energy from magnetic force on moving particle. Newclear energy come from mass-energy conservation and thermal energy and/or mass-KE imbalance of reactants and products

2. Conservation of energy is practically tested everytime any mechanical system is run and heated, so is also any electromagnetic or chemical system that have be deliberately designed on this principle. No valid physics experiment to my knowledge have found out any case where discrepency of initial and final energy is non-explanable from measurement error perspective. (I cannot remember the source, but one I heard this law have been implictly tested more than a billion times!)

3. rate of change of momentum is force, force times displacement is work. so perhaps calculus would tell dW=F dx=(dp/dt)*dx=vdp=p/m dp. Integrating this expression is a valid operation in both newtonean and relativistic pepspective. m is a function of p (since m is function of v) in relativistic perspective.

4. I don't know how it goes or how the role of symmetry is played out here, but Noether's Theorem says since every symmetry gives way to some conservation, symmetry of time leads to conservation of energy, symmetry of space leads to conservation of momentum. inertia times velocity is always the momentum, be it linear or angular. Angular momemntum comes from rotational inertia times rotational velocity, you know.

Sorry for not being philosophically sophisticated and in case imprecise. But this is what any college or university physics student would say, IMHO.

Dear Chian Fan

Einstein used the vague concept of space to explain his idea that gravity has a geometrical origin.

But in modern physics space (= the universe) is described with the help of its detectable properties: the basic quantum fields (quantum field theory).

Thus space itself shows:

• vector properties (the magnetic field),
• scalar properties (the Higgs field)
• “energy” – topological – properties (the electric field).

Gravitation doesn’t exist without matter in the universe thus gravitation isn’t a basic quantum field (that means gravity has no basic quantum field of its own).

The “energy” property of the electric field is understandable because the variable of the electric field is the quantum of energy, Planck’s constant (h). Moreover, the linear velocity of a quantum of energy within the structure of the basic quantum fields shows to be a constant too, the speed of light.

But experiments show that the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields. If at a arbitrary point in space a quantum of energy starts to “grow” from zero to 1h it generates a corresponding “growing” vector within the magnetic field. See the schematic diagram about the correspondence.

All the energy variances in the universe are conserved (law of conservation of energy) thus all the vector variances in the universe are conserved too (law of conservation of momentum). Unfortunately, theoretical physicists are sloppy thinkers. Because the meaning of momentum in physics is the influence of an amount of energy and its related direction (vector).

But the law of conservation of energy already envelopes all the energy in the universe. Thus it is more insightful if we use 2 universal conversation laws: the law of conservation of (the total amount of) energy and the law of conservation of (the total amount of) vectors. Again, both universal conservation laws correspond with each other because the electric field and the magnetic field are corresponding fields (together termed electromagnetic field).

But we can also make the choice to throw away the law of conservation of energy because the law of conservation of momentum envelopes all. Because a quantum of energy has momentum too.

Of course there is evidence that both conservation laws are valid because of experiments. Moreover, the properties of the light from distant galaxies show that these conservation laws are valid everywhere in the universe.

It is possible to describe energy in a mathematical way. But our universe is a geometrical universe – we only have to look around – so it is not an easy subject to explain. Moreover, physicists are not familiar with the foundations of mathematics because it is not part of the scientific education.

With kind regards, Sydney

“…Can different forms of energy be unified?

- to answer to this question it is necessary before to answer to the question – what is “energy”?, while yeah, really in physics in that

“…Richard Feynman, said in his Lectures in the sixties, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is". Thus, Feynman introduced energy as an abstract quantity from the beginning of his university teaching [3].?…..”

- Richard Feynman was completely correct. The fundamental phenomenon “Energy” in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, is fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational – as all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, humans directly interact with which - first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Inertia”, “Space” , “Time”, “Information”, fundamentally are. So, including, everything in Matter in physics really is transcendent, etc., though.

All these phenomena/notions can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- where, first of all, it is completely rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End.

Including Matter and Consciousness are for sure nothing else than some informational systems/ elements of the Set, at that the utmost general scientific definition of “Information” is as

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

The definitions of the phenomena above, including “Energy” and at more concrete application to the informational system “Matter”, which, in accordance with the outstanding von Weizsäcker "Ur- hypothesis” , and the outstanding Fredkin-Toffoli finding, is based on a simple binary reversible logics,

- are given on first dozen of pages in the SS&VT informational physical model main papers, say, in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , and here note also that utmost complete understanding of what any fundamental phenomenon above, including “Energy”, is, is possible only if the definitions of all phenomena are known, so for those who really want to know what exists and happens in Matter in this case more see the at least 2-nd link above,

- here only a brief note to what is “Energy”.

Energy is an absolutely fundamental phenomenon – an element of the “Logos” set, i.e. is absolutely obligatorily actualized in every informational pattern/system because of the logical self-inconsistence of other “Logos” element, “Change”: at any change of something this something’s state is simultaneously former, recent, and future states, while all these states are different by definition, what is logical nonsense;

- and so to overcome this logical prohibition of any change – including to create a new informational pattern/system – it is necessary to spend some portion of indeed, really mysterious not only in the mainstream, but also in the conception , phenomenon/“Quantity” “Energy”.

However in the conception – and more concretely relating to Matter – in the physical model, at least it is clarified:

– for what reason “Energy” exists - see above;

- that energy, though is “lesser mighty than” the “Logos” element “Logics and Logical Rules”, at least in the simple completely rigorously organized basing on a small set of fundamental and universal laws/links/constants informational system “Matter” provides, as a rule, “persuasiveness” of informational messages at interactions of material objects – as a rule the more energy portion is spent, the more “persuasive” the result, however that happens not always; and, at that

- energy at its actualizations in Matter – and possibly at all – is rather “dumb” Quantity – its action in Matter is fundamentally universal, and the results of energy action practically completely are determined by informational structures that interact. So, say, in physics indeed

“……Mechanical energy is energy, Heat energy is energy, Electrical and magnetic energy is energy, Chemical and internal energy is energy, Radiant energy is energy, so what exactly is "energy"?[2]…”,

- etc., however in all cases only one type of just energy is used, but results of the usage in electrical, magnetic, thermodynamic, etc., etc., systems are well specific and different; or, say, returning to “persuasiveness”, there can be spent, say a large portions of energy to hit a piece of ice from -100Co to -0.01Co, and further a not large portion transforms ice into water, etc.

The post is rather long already, so note also only that

“….Energy is 'inherent ability' to do work, work here is force times displacement (along direction of force)….”

- doesn’t define energy completely; again, energy is used in other cases also, again say, at creations of new particles – of ether fundamentally particles -antiparticles pairs in the Matter’s 4D space [more see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Three-dimensional_space_issue/1], or “massless” and so single, particles in 3D space; etc.

Cheers

Consequences of the same unificatory selection process—an application of the Free Energy Principle—are to be followed into the implications for those function that are considered Energy-minimal . Structured inputs transformed via lag relay in superficial patch connections , leading to the generation of circumferential connectivity hyperplanes superimposed upon “like-to-like” connectivity surrounding each singularity. The spatiotemporal energy and dimension reduction models of preferences are accounted for and unified within the revised expanded model, and relationships of orientation preference (OP), space frequency preference (SFP) on energy Fronts , are to some extent already resolved.

Dear Chian Fan.

I consider necessary to answer all your questions here shortly and simply.

Everything in this world consists of action quanta h. They are elements of the corresponding spaces from which different particles and materials are made. Particles exchange quanta of action and may turn into each other, but always they remain as h quanta, known as Planck's constant.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363847410_Toward_a_new_physics_the_physics_of_discrete_spaces - link to more detailed presentation.

Everyone knows formula for energy of photon ε=hν or h=ετ, where τ=1/ν is a characteristic time associated with an oscillation period in a classical electromagnetic wave. As well as the de Broglie formula p=h/λ, which is valid both for particles with mass and for massless ones.

Thus, the energy is just the rate of transfer of action quanta: ε=h/τ. The momentum: p=h/λ - a kind of "gradient" of the transfer of these quanta in the form of particles. The main role here belongs to the action quanta, which link energy and momentum. Therefore, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum will be special cases, and the law of conservation of the total number of action quanta will be general one.

If you want to look at the reverse side of energy and momentum, then τ=h/ε and λ=h/p will be some kind of quanta of time and of space extent.

Yours sincerely, Dulin Mikhail.

It is also of vital importance to well think of which medium[-particle] we go for , to intermediate amongst "energy fronts" .......... The import of any medium inevitably goes beyond its contents to its effects on the semi-compactified Manifold in which it is embedded. There are indicators that all of these “messages” of energy quantization on the Front are playing out. Building from the well understood case of the standard model as a very particular example within energy field theory , most of it of course inaccessible to low-energy experiments, and imply the need to extract concrete scenarios and classes of models that could eventually be contrasted with searches in collider physics' energy exchange levels and other particle experiments as well as in cosmological observations.

(1) The derivation of the Einstein mass-energy equation [1] is based on the release of photons from an object. Therefore, E = mc² expresses a one-way relationship of "mass contains energy" and does not fully express the two-way relationship. For example, a photon has no mass (either static or dynamic; it cannot be at rest and cannot be propelled), but it has energy and momentum. We can only understand that the energy of a photon can be converted into mass m=E/c² if possible. This relationship has been confirmed in the processes of "annihilation" and "pair production" [2]. The "=" sign in the mathematical expression must be accompanied by a reasonable physical interpretation to be valid. E = mc² expresses only a "mass-energy" relationship, not a definition of "mathematical energy" as we believe [3].

2) According to the derivation of Planck's blackbody radiation law [4], the energy of radiation is E = n*hν, and it is logical to associate h with the elementary energy unit. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that the fundamental energy unit (Energy element) is ε=hν, which does not have a fixed value, but changes with the frequency ν; the elementary energy unit can be infinitely small or infinitely large, and even the whole current universe can be expressed in terms of the elementary energy unit. Thus, quantifying it does not completely destroy the natural continuity that we expect. It is also the elementary energy unit that can be said to reconcile the continuum and the discrete in such a way that it results in a continuous distribution pattern of blackbody radiation, as well as a wave function pattern such as that of the hydrogen atom.

We should also note here that h and ν are inseparable in expressing the elementary energy unit, and that neither h nor ν can express the energy unit alone. The minimum energy unit is best present when its size can change depending on the frequency ν. If the minimum energy unit is considered to be fixed, such as a fixed discrete value of mass, energy, length, time, etc. at the Panck scale [5], it brings a series of logical contradictions. For example, the conflict between the Planck scale and Special Relativity [6], where SR argues that there should be no rigid body [7].

4) The relationship between energy and momentum is crucial, the energy-momentum relation E=p^2/2m for macroscopic objects, the energy momentum relation for photons, ε=hν, p=h/λ, the relativistic energy-momentum relation, E^2=p^2*c^2+m^2*c^4, etc. This is not only because it is a factual expression, but also because the "uncertainty principle" establishes the "energy-time" ε*t>=h, "momentum-space" p*x>=h, relations [8]; And the "energy operator" ih∂/∂t and "momentum operator" ih∂/∂x in the wave equation with respect to time and space. [9]. It is implied that energy is a thing associated with time and momentum is a thing associated with space. Through the relationship between time and space, the invariant relationship between energy individual momentum is again determined. However, this does not mean that there must exist τ=h/ε and λ=h/p, some kind of quanta of time and of space. It would be more natural to think of them as spacetime expressions of energy and momentum units. Personally, I have doubts about the idea of spacetime discretization. Firstly it is not a result of derivation, and secondly it triggers more difficult questions to answer. For example, are discrete space-time units of the same size? Are the scales of the units measured by length, area, and volume? Will it conflict with SR? How do they combine to form the spacetime we see? Are there "gaps" between the units? How are the boundaries between units defined? Do boundaries and non-boundaries belong to the same existence? That is, are the boundaries and interiors of discrete units the same? If the boundary is changing, how does it change? What factors can cause it to change? Are discrete spacetime units movable? Can they be driven? How does the energy momentum propagate across the discrete spacetime? What is the overall distribution of discrete spacetime units ......? Therefore, if spacetime discretization is not a necessary assumption, it may be better for us to remain under the existing spacetime viewpoint, after all, there are still many fundamental questions left unanswered.

5) "And, in this case finally: in physics there exist fundamental parameter of practically everything - " energy", which at least till now doesn't exist in mathematics..." [3]; I am very pleased with this formulation, because it triggers, and enhances, different thinking. However, "Energy is an absolutely fundamental phenomenon - an element of the "Logos" set, i.e. is absolutely obligatorily actualized in every informational pattern/system because of the logical self-inconsistence of other "Logos " element, "Change": at any change of something this something's state is simultaneously former , recent, and future states, while all these states are different by definition, what is logical nonsense;". Again, I am at a loss. If "information" is used as the basis of the new physics, I wonder if there is a precise, consistent and unchanging definition of "information". In the paper of SS [10], there are dozens, even hundreds of definitions of information. It is not known whether "information" is a virtual or concrete thing. It is not known whether there is a "law of conservation of information". For example, a photon ε1 = hν1 and another photon ε2 = hν2 have the same amount of information, but what is the information of each of them? How to make more sense than this current expression?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

----------------------------------------------------------

[1] Einstein, A. (1905). "Is the inertia of an object related to the energy it contains?", Annalen der Physik 18: 639；

[2] Refer to the discussion：https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO8_Are_annihilation_and_pair_production_mutually_inverse_processes

[3] Refer to the discussion：https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO1_Three-dimensional_space_issue ；

[4] Gearhart, C. A. (2002). "Planck, the Quantum, and the Historians." Physics in perspective 4(2): 170-215.

[5] Lobo, M. P. (2020). "Roads to the Planck scale."； Faraoni, V. (2017). "Three new roads to the Planck scale." American Journal of Physics 85(11): 865-869.；Adler, R. J. (2010). "Six easy roads to the Planck scale." American Journal of Physics 78(9): 925-932.

[6] Rovelli, C. and S. Speziale (2003). "Reconcile Planck-scale discreteness and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction." Physical Review D 67(6): 064019.

[7] Landau, L. D. and E. M. Lifshitz (2012). 场论（理论物理学教程）, 高等教育出版社；Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(II；

[8] Heisenberg, W. (1927). "Principle of indeterminacy." Z. Physik 43: 172-198. “ The "Uncertainty Principle" has been controversial in interpretation since its emergenceSchrödinger, E. (1950). "What is an elementary particle?（基本粒子是什么？）." Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution ；Busch, P., T. Heinonen and P. Lahti (2007). "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." Physics Reports 452(6): 155-176. 】。However, it still plays a very important role in modern physics and is the theoretical basis for many new physicse.g，Maggiore, M. (1993). "A generalized uncertainty principle in quantum gravity." Physics Letters B 304(1): 65-69.】. In this regard, although further examination is needed, the uncertainty relation based on the Fourier transform is existed.

[9] Refer to the discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO2_What_are_the_roots_of_the_energy_operator_ih_t_and_the_momentum_operator_ih_x ;

[10] Shevchenko, S. and V. Tokarevsky (2022). "The Information as Absolute" - 2022 ed.

Dear Chian Fan

(1) The energy (E) in the formula E = m c2 is free energy in vacuum space. To get matter (m) the electromagnetic field has to concentrate free energy in vacuum space (one-way). To transform matter (m) into free energy (two-way) we have to add surface area to every concentrated quantum of energy of the matter object (c2). If energy is volume, accelerating a particle till it nears the speed of light will result in the “blow up” of the particle to macroscopic proportions (and that is not what we observe).

You are right that the formula E = m c2 doesn’t represent a mathematical description of energy. But we can only describe energy in a mathematical way if we have a reliable model of physical reality at the smallest scale size. That means that the model is equal to the hoped unified theory in QFT. So you have to wait for a while or solve the problems yourself.

(2) Because every quantity in the Planck-Einstein relation [E = h f and c = f λ] is a (multiple of) a universal constant (E ;c ; h) the remaining variable (λ = wave length) must be a multiple of a universal constant too. In line with the observation that the smallest wave length is “fixed” (about 1 fm). The consequence is that the electric field has a metric all over the universe (the minimal length scale). Thus energy as a quantized variable that is exchanged by and within the structure of the electric field is a topological property under invariance of volume of the structure.

(4) Momentum is an amount of energy and the influence of the amount of energy in a certain direction (vector). Even a quantum of energy (h) has momentum. All the energy in the universe is conserved – law of conservation of energy – thus all the vectors in the universe are conserved too. In line with the properties of the electric - and corresponding magnetic field. So you are right that the relationship between energy and momentum is crucial because both represent the variable properties of the electromagnetic field (quantized energy and corresponding vectors).

Einstein’s SR and GR theories are about macroscopic reality. Time in quantum theory is a constant (quantum time) and the basic quantum fields tessellate the volume of the whole universe (= space). In QFT space is described by its variable properties and categorized (termed “fields”). Einstein’s model of curved spacetime has no details (structure) and it is based on the variances of observable phenomena (classic physics).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Chian Fan. It is not difficult at all to answer the "difficult" questions you posed.

Einstein's GR is a classical theory that cannot be made quantum up to now. Therefore, it would not be entirely correct to ask what place the discrete quanta of space and time, discussed here, occupy in it. It would be correct to ask how to derive GR from them? But this is a matter for the future, since the complete "Theory of Everything" based on the quantum of action is not yet ready.

Yours sincerely, Dulin Mikhail.

I believe that this discussion on energy is misleading, a more correct discussion should be "what is mass" which under all circumstances can be translated to "what is energy". If you concentrate on mass, things will become clearer.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

I believe that this discussion on the very concept of energy is very well-founded . . . .. I am glad that Mr Fan started it ,,,,,,,,,,

Yes, energy can be unified :

www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-46-16.PDF

In addition, Einstein field equations state that stress is energy, so that unifies heat, potential, etc.. with particles since the oscillators in this paper are just stress.

Yes, relative energies are locally conserved, but energy is not conserved in cosmology :

https://ptep-online.com/2017/PP-49-06.PDF

Both papers are my own, with sometimes some poor developments; but overall all figures logically match.

Chian Fan,

- from your long and detailed post it looks as that you till now didn’t understand that is written rather numerously in SS posts – that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions – and so all things that directly relate to these phenomena/notions - first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Energy”, “Inertia”, “Space” , “Time”, “Information” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and so any addressing to the phenomena in framework of the mainstream on really fundamental level completely evidently logically can result – and so really results - only in some transcendent/uncertain/irrational mental constructions, where the authors really don’t understand – what the words that they use mean.

Again, any really scientifically rational consideration/elaboration of any really fundamental problem – including this thread question – is possible only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, where the phenomena/notions above are really scientifically rigorously defined, and the SS&VT informational physical model of the phenomenon “Matter”, which is based on the conception, the links to main papers see the SS post on page 1, 3 days ago now.

Correspondingly, though in this SS post the thread question is really essentially answered on possible scientific level - while the answer is principally incomplete since in the conception, unlike other fundamental phenomena, the phenomenon “Energy” isn’t defined completely – however it rather clearly and scientifically correctly clarifies a lot of points in the “Energy problem”,

- while most of that is in your yesterday post repeats some mainstream physics’s , again, principally eventually transcendent, etc., points.

So more about what is energy see the SS post on page 1, here only a note about the completely obligatory point – more about what is the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information”, without scientific understanding of what it is it is fundamentally impossible to understand on fundamental level anything in physics.

Firstly note, that physics, which studies Matter, is a mental product of living beings “physicists”, and so to understand what is “Information”? it is necessary to understand – what are the other fundamental phenomena/notions pointed above, including, say, what is fundamentally non-material – and so fundamentally non-physical – phenomenon “Consciousness”; and just so the definitions of all phenomena are given in introductory dozen pages of main SS&VT physical papers, though more specifically in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics .

The utmost general definition of “Information”again see the pointed above SS post, while you, despite that seems looked at least the conception paper, reference [10] where this definition is also written, in the below quote,write, nonetheless

“…If "information" is used as the basis of the new physics, I wonder if there is a precise, consistent and unchanging definition of "information". In the paper of SS [10], there are dozens, even hundreds of definitions of information….”

- the utmost general definition of “Information” in the SS post and in the papers is just precise, consistent and unchanging definition; while indeed listed in [10] a number of other definitions are just mainstream ones, where the authors describe some traits of Information, which are known for the authors only on the instinctive level, since some living beings “authors” have some versions of, again, fundamentally non-material, informational system “Consciousness”, some versions of which every living being have, just only that fundamentally differs “animate matter” from “inanimate matter”, i.e. – simply “matter”

- and so every living being, even, say, bacteria, well know on mainstream authors – and all/every other mainstream people – level that “Information is a data about something”, “signals about something” that “should be analyzed by using logical rules”, etc., etc., though at that don’t know the word “Information”, “logical rules”, etc., - again really as that quite equally that mainstream people do.

Quite analogously completely instinctively all living beings, including physicists, constantly really only instinctively study the mostly material environment - nonetheless study sometimes rather adequately to the reality, and just so living beings are living beings in rather aggressive to their material consciousnesses stable residences, living beings “scientists” develop theories, etc..

All that happens just because of that there exist, as that rigorously proven in [10], nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns, i.e. since consciousnesses, including physicists’ ones, though are fundamentally non-material informational systems, however are made from the only one stuff “Information”, while everything else, including Matter and everything in Matter, is made of which.

That is another thing, that most of people, including mainstream physicists, even doesn’t suspect that the problems “what is “information” that they use?”, why they obtain and analyze some “information”, including about some informational links in Matter that they observe, reveal, and claim as some “physical laws”, etc.,

- and till they address only to some again completely transcendently instinctively “understood” objects/effects/events/processes correspondingly completely instinctively interpreting obtained information – that in some cases is adequate to the reality, while really the interpretations are mostly some illusions, which really non-adequate on deeper levels of the reality.

Just so really all physical theories are based on fundamentally wrong postulates, the quite clear examples are the postulated in the SR/GR really fantastic “relativistic properties and effects of the space/time/spacetime”, etc.; , though yeah, using after innumerous attempts some well clearly only irrational mathematical tricks fitting with experiments makes some theories be adequately used, again, in some cases.

This post is long already, so more, including the answer to the thread question, see the SS post on page 1 and links in the post.

Cheers

Dear Chian Fan

You wrote: "However, the universal concept of energy in physics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed."

At the subatomic level of magnitude, from the electromagnetic perspective, it seems that the amount of kinetic energy induced in all charged elementary particles can only vary "adiabatically" as a function of the inverse of the infinitesimally progressive varying distances separating them, according to the only force known to be at play with regard to charged particles, the Coulomb force, irrespective of the time elapsed.

Best Regards, André

The amount of kinetic energy induced in all charged elementary particles can also vary "diabatically" in cases where symmetry-breaking does not necessarily fall into bifurcation(s') category ............

The Universe is observed to be accelerating, but the reason is conventionally unknown and labeled "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant" so that general relativity may conform to this observation. It has been discussed that a scale-invariant locality form of Newtonian gravitation is fundamentally repulsive, and only apparently attractive below the scale of galactic superclusters, accounting as well for "dark matter." If this is the case, the Universe is undergoing accelerated expansion because of the gravitational energy stored in space that is being released with the expansion. The three other forces and fundamental elementary particles were derived from Newtonian gravitation and special relativity at the sub-nucleon scale. Then the nature of energy might be gravitation. If gravitation and acceleration are always equivalent (identical), the nature of energy might also be described as an inertial effect of the acceleration of the Universe. The Universe is observed to be accelerating, but the reason is conventionally unknown and labeled "dark energy" or the "cosmological constant" so that general relativity may conform to this observation. It has been discussed that a scale-invariant locality form of Newtonian gravitation is fundamentally repulsive, and only apparently attractive below the scale of galactic superclusters, accounting as well for "dark matter." If this is the case, the Universe is undergoing accelerated expansion because of the gravitational energy stored in space that is being released with the expansion. The three other forces and fundamental elementary particles were derived from Newtonian gravitation and special relativity at the sub-nucleon scale. Then the nature of energy might be gravitation. If gravitation and acceleration are always equivalent (identical), the nature of energy might also be described as an inertial effect of the acceleration of the Universe. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-nature-physical-energy-warren-frisina/?fbclid=IwAR3BDU2zEN7i0nvfCQQOnPRuitnc1ys5xhkWx39SqIDI_OigcMhFfFt23u4

Let’s to continue to comment the problem “Information – Matter - Energy ”, first of all what that is in the SS&VT informational physical model, for convenience repeat links to the main papers

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics ,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

First of all repeat, that the utmost general, precise, consistent and unchanging definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”

- while, including, the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Change”, “Logics/Logical Rules”, etc., are the “Logos” set elements, and so are absolutely obligatorily actualized in any/every informational pattern/system [i.e. absolutely in everything],

- and, since there can be absolutely infinite versions of the different actualizations/combinations of the actualizations in different the patterns/systems, the phenomenon “Information” is highly complex and paradoxical, so principally hasn’t some “own/intrinsic” measure, or, by another words, some “informational value” of any, besides some simple cases. “Values” of concrete patterns/ systems is determined, first of all by “semantics”.

Some examples where some universal “measures” can be used are some rigorously logically organized, basing on small sets of basic rules/constants, systems; say that is mathematics, including mathematical logics; corresponding cybernetics theories of complexity, algorithms; and the [Shannon’s] really the “theory of communications”, which is claimed in the mainstream as “the theory of information” where the “measure of information” – bit – is introduced.

Really all these mainstream theories aren’t some general theories of “Information”, and are applied only to some rather wide, but concrete, and well limited, classes of the patterns/systems,

- including that is true at application to/in rather simple informational system even of rather simple informational patterns/systems “Matter”, where, say the “theory of information” was till now applied by some concrete way only in thermodynamics, though that nothing changed in the thermodynamics, it really remains as was soon 200 years ago.

Including the SS&VT informational physical model doesn’t use some concrete “quantative” applications of the phenomenon “Information”, it is just “ informational” model just because of that is based on the “The Information as Absolute” conception, where all “Meta-physical” phenomena/notions are really scientifically rigorously defined,

- including “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Inertia”, while are “Logos” elements in “Information” are at that Meta-notions, and so fundamental observables/variables at description of what exists and happens in the studied by physics “Matter”, in “non-informational” mainstream physics really fantastic properties are postulated for which.

Besides, the other really fundamental point in this case is that earlier outstanding utmost fundamental – but by no means scientifically grounded, von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings in the conception have became completely legitimate, and, since are consistent with experimental data, first of all that Matter’s space is 3-dimesional, and in the Matter the energy conservation law acts, the findings have became as be practically for sure true in whole Matter – and so real physics; correspondingly the SS&VT informational model is based on these findings.

However that above was/is enough to solve/clarify more 30 really fundamental problems in physics, either concrete as “what is fine structure constant” or general, say, why on QM scale is as it is, or why the main postulates in physical theories are wrong, and what correct postulates must be, etc., more see the linked above papers

Including in that

“…It is not known whether "information" is a virtual or concrete thing. It is not known whether there is a "law of conservation of information". For example, a photon ε1 = hν1 and another photon ε2 = hν2 have the same amount of information, but what is the information of each of them? How to make more sense than this current expression? …..”

- really there are no questions. Really Information" is absolutely objectively real thing - there exist absolutely nothing that would not be “an information”; in concrete cases it is/are concrete things; there cannot be, and so aren’t, some general “laws of conservation of information”, and so some concrete “amounts of information”, etc.

So all what is necessary first of all to know in physics is that everything is/are some informational binary reversible patterns/systems, while correspondingly the ultimate base of Matter is the binary, reversible, at least “4D Fredkin-Toffoli logical gates”, and further the word “informational” can be superfluous at solutions of most of concrete physical problems seems for a rather long time of physics development.

Cheers

Great question Chian Fan. You can find an answer to all of these questions in my theoretical post on Researchgate, "Astrophysical Speculations [Up-Dated]". In short, it assumes that energy, mass, time, interaction, etc., are all manifestations of the same underlying process. The paper is both highly speculative but well supported. I would deeply respect your opinion on the concept presented in that paper.

Beauty, energy, information

The core meaning of our question is the search for the "unity" of the energy that exists universally in all things, or it can also be called "coherence", "uniqueness", "commonality", etc....., properties that I can't quite describe in words.

If we define "energy" as "information", and the amount of energy as the amount of information, then we can also assume that this "unity" already exists, because information can be transmitted to each other, and the amount of information is also conserved. However, this definition of "information" is inconsistent with the definition of information in information theory, and also inconsistent with the definition of "entropy".

There is a great consistency between "information" and "beauty", or we can think that "beauty" is the embodiment of "beautiful information". or that "beauty" is the embodiment of "the message of beauty". However, "beauty" is not transferable in equal quantities, and the elements of beauty here may not be able to present the same beauty in the other place; nor is there any constancy in beauty, which is a much more uncertain thing than "information".

All existence can be endowed with "information", because what exists, whether in structure or in behavior, must be able to be described; and description is the most direct expression of "information". They can be encoded in "binary". However, to express everything in "binary" without redundancy, one needs to have access to information about everything, because binary coding without redundancy is relative. The existence of any redundancy means that it is not the minimal information. Therefore, it is not possible to uniquely "express" things using information in the conventional sense.

Should there be a substantial unity of energy? That is, all things are composed of this basic element of energy, and all forms of energy are transmitted and transformed according to this element. This is our concern, because we must answer the question, what makes different forms of energy able to transform into each other? On what basis are energy and momentum held together?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

You wrote: "Can different forms of energy be unified? ...And ...what makes different forms of energy able to transform into each other? On what basis are energy and momentum held together?"

Isn't there an inherent contradiction between these two issues? If energy is unified into being a single element or "substance", then these assumed "different forms" can only be different ways that the same single element is subjectively perceived or measured.

Given that it can be mathematically demonstrated that all classical force equations can interchangeably be derived from F=ma and F=eE, which is an equality that Einstein put in perspective already in 1910, establishing that the same underlying force is involved, then isn't it logical that the energy induced by this single underlying force, including momentum energy, could be a single element or "substance" also?

Best Regards, André

Chian Fan,

- you wrote again some wording passages that [and the thread question at all, though] are essentially answered already in SS posts above, including for that, first of all, it is pointed that in the SS&VT 2007 philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- it is completely rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set. Which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent and so exists absolutely eternally, having no Beginning and no End.

Including Matter and Consciousness are for sure nothing else than some informational systems/ elements of the Set, and the utmost general, precise, consistent and unchanging definition of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information” is given:

“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”,

- i.e. the “Logos” set elements “make” something to be some informational pattern/system”,

- however the “Logos” set elements, including the elements “Energy”, and, say, “Space”, and “Time”, aren’t some “information”. Again – some “information” is made only provided that all the Logos set elements are concretely actualized at making of any/every concrete “information” [i.e. informational pattern/system].

Including in the SS posts it is explained that Matter and Consciousness – that all living beings on Erath have [though more correctly – the consciousness of every living being has her being], despite that are made from the one stuff “Information”, are fundamentally different systems, since are constructed and based on fundamentally different sets of basic laws/links/constants, so both exist and constantly evolve/operate in principally essentially different spaces:

- Matter’s space is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4]4D space with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s), which – in accordance with the utmost general, precise, consistent and unchanging definition of the “Logos” element “Space” [see first dozen of pages in couple of main papers with the SS&VT informational physical model that are linked in SS posts above in the thread]

– is necessary for actualization of 4+4 degreases of freedom at changing of states of the ultimate base of Matter - primary elementary logical structures –(at least) [4+4]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]; which are “[4+4]4D Fredkin-Toffoli logical gates”, while

- any consciousness’s space in the Set, including “consciousness on Earth” version that living beings have, fundamentally can have arbitrary number N of arbitrary dimensions, so consciousnesses on Earth can operate in ND spaces, which only partially crossed with the Matter’s space above.

Besides all/every dynamical elements in the Set, including Matter and consciousnesses change their states in unique universal for all Set’s elements time dimension. Any space and time dimensions fundamentally hasn’t some intrinsic “own” measures, however if there are more than one element in a system, and there are more than one change, it is possible to compare corresponding time and space intervals relatively.

Since Matter is rather simple and completely rigorously organized system, in Matter’s space it is possible to establish some space and time interval etalons, so utmost convenient Matter’s spacetime metrics is (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s, ct).

Humans now don’t know [and well possibly never will know] what is metrics of their consciousnesses spaces, however that doesn’t interfere for the consciousnesses, in this completely “instinctive” operations.

As well the Logos set element “Energy” is actualized in Matter and consciousnesses, possibly fundamentally, differently – besides that in any/every case to change/create some informational pattern/system, say, an cyclic algorithm “a particle” in Matter or a rational thought in a consciousness, some fundamentally non-zero portion of “energy” must be spent; in Matter “Energy” is actualized as unique and ultimately universal “energy”, what energy is used in consciousnesses humans don’t know also, so all what is known is that to think it is necessary to eat.

As well as “"beauty" is purely non-material criterion at only some consciousness operation, while for any Matter’s element – particle, star, etc., that doesn’t exist, every element knows absolutely completely physics, and interacts in complete accordance with what it knows; at that knows nothing else, and so mostly don’t interact with anything else in the Set – besides some consciousnesses, which fundamentally can, in principle, interact with anything, including matter.

Etc., the post again is rather long, so only one note else to

“… The core meaning of our question is the search for the "unity" of the energy that exists universally in all things, or it can also be called "coherence", "uniqueness", "commonality", etc....., properties that I can't quite describe in words.

If we define "energy" as "information", and the amount of energy as the amount of information, then we can also assume that this "unity" already exists, because information can be transmitted to each other, and the amount of information is also conserved. However, this definition of "information" is inconsistent with the definition of information in information theory, and also inconsistent with the definition of "entropy".…..”

- again – see above here and in SS posts in the thread – in Matter practically for sure only some one type of energy is actualized, since in Matter ultimately fundamental and universal laws/links/ constants act, there can be, and really is, only one “unit of energy”, say, “Joule” established; it is fundamentally impossible “define "energy" as "information", and the amount of energy as the amount of information”, again – Energy fundamentally isn’t an information; and there cannot be some rational “amount of information” at all, since the value of any information is determined first of all by “semantic” – i.e. by “sense”, what principally cannot be universally formalized/measured in even so simple informational system as Matter is; so there cannot be some universal “information theory”, etc. – again that is explained in the SS posts already, so more see the posts.

Cheers

The treating of energy fronts with one calculated kinetic energy versus another computer-simulated numerical value for energy front velocity , leads to a SYSTEM being established partly disrupted by decentralized chaos' quanta . multiple model adaptive control is , thence , utilized to improve the transient response of attitude control system for a rigid incorporating influence . The proposed approach, based on a mixed integer programming mathematical model, changes the total idle chaos/dissipation time of the given sub-systems to minimize energy miscalculation . This method to constrain the zero-point energy in quasi-classical trajectory calculations smoothly eliminates the coupling terms in the Hamiltonian as the energy of any mode falls below a specified value. This approach thus imposes a more stringent quantization condition on classical trajectory simulations than has been traditionally employed, while doing so in a manner that is time-symmetric and microscopically reversible.

Measuring the periodicity of quasi-periodic trajectories by applying discrete Fourier transform (DFT) to the trajectories and analyzing the frequency domain within the concept of entropy typically have higher entropies, and trajectories with higher entropies mean the periodicities of the motions are stronger. Theoretical differences between two trajectories expressed as summations of trigonometric functions are also derived analytically. ((The phenomenon of aggregation of particles is rather common in nature. The classic work in aggregation dates back to Smoluchowsky. )) Recent developments have indicated that in addition to out-of-time ordered correlation functions (OTOCs), quantum chaos also has a sharp manifestation in the thermal energy density two-point functions, at least for maximally chaotic energy systems. The manifestation, referred to as pole-skipping, concerns the analytic behaviour of energy density two-point functions around a special point ω = iλ, k = iλ/vB​ in the complex frequency and momentum plane. Herein λ and vB​ are the Lyapunov exponent and butterfly velocity characterising quantum chaos. The phenomenon of pole-skipping is universal for general finite-dissipative systems dual to Einstein gravity coupled to matter. In doing so one might as well uncover a surprising universal feature of the linearised Einstein equations around a static energy front confrontation geometry. This pushed the researcher on energy fronts' unification into a holographic axion model where all of the features of our general argument as well as the pole-skipping phenomenon can be verified in detail.

Dear André Michaud

1) you write "Isn't there an inherent contradiction between these two issues? If energy is unified into being a single element or "substance", then these assumed "different forms" can only be different ways that the same single element is subjectively perceived or measured."

We don't know what a photon is, what an electron is ...... We do not know the origin of energy. Therefore it cannot be denied that there are universal "elements" for all forms of energy.

For example, many physicists have been pursuing planck scale matter elements, planck scale space-time elements. Such elements must be primitives of energy, and such things are assumptions that cannot be affirmed or denied. We do not reject them.

Different forms of energy can be transformed into each other, but without a common "intermediary" they are independent of each other, so how to construct this transformation relationship? If the common "intermediary" between them is energy, doesn't energy have to be a physical entity?

2) You write “then isn't it logical that the energy induced by this single underlying force, including momentum energy, could be a single element or "substance" also?”.

There is a big problem here. Although the "Grand Unified Theory" of physics is often thought of as a unification of several forces, in reality this must be the wrong starting point.

Physics does not have a reasonable and precise definition of "force". We cannot identify "force" as the most fundamental thing in physics, or the most fundamental being, at least not logically. Force is simply a product of interaction, or a concept abstracted from interaction. When a single photon exists, force does not exist; when two photons exist and overlap, the conventional concept of force does not exist, although there is interference between them; when a single electron exists, force does not exist; when two electrons exist, force appears ....... So force must be subordinate to energy-momentum, and must be a consequence of the conservation of energy-momentum, rather than dominating it. The status of "force" is only the same as that of "information", which is a manifestation of matter and energy, which are not even material properties.

For now, just a short answer to your questioning. I will start a more comprehensive discussion on energy later. Where hope to hear your insights as well as everyone else's. However, it may take longer.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan ,

You live in China and have not been touched - you have forgotten the teachings of Lao Tzu! This could be the reason why you don't understand what André Michaud wrote to you.

Please excuse me for being blunt!

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear Chian Fan

You wrote: " We don't know what a photon is, what an electron is ...... "

I think we know quite a lot about photons and electrons.

We know since Wien's experiments with the black-body 130 years ago that electromagnetic energy is quantized. Soon afterwards Planck observed that h=6.62606876E-34 joules per cycle (j/Hz) was the lowest common denominator energy value of all frequencies emitted by Wien's black body.

In 1924, de Broglie, in his thesis established from theory that h=6.62606876E-34 joules per cycle was also the smallest common denominator of all resonance frequencies of the Bohr atom, his famous resolved integral being 2πRm0v=nh

In which 2πR for n=1 is the Bohr ground state orbit = 3.32491846E-10 m

m0 is the electron rest mass =9.10938188E-31 kg

v is the classical velocity of the electron on the Bohr orbit = αc=2187691.253 m/s

Then for n=1, you can do the calculation yourself:

2πRm0v=h = 6.626068759E-34 joules for 1 orbit (1 cycle at the classical Bohr orbit velocity).

To find the total energy of the electron at the Bohr radius distance from the central proton, you need to calculate the number of times the electron will theoretically cycle the proton in 1 second.

This is achieved by dividing the velocity by the length of the Bohr orbit:

f=2187691.253/3.32491846E-10=6.57968392E15 Hz

Multiplied by Planck's constant, you obtain in joules the energy induced at the Bohr radius distance from the proton.

fh=4.359743808E-18 joules.

Which exactly matches the energy calculated with the Coulomb equation at the Bohr radius distance from the proton.

And which, when converted to electronvolts (eV), gives 27.21138346 eV,

Half of which (13.60569173 eV) is the known amount of momentum energy liberated as a localized electromagnetic photon, as recorded in the electron spectrum, when an electron is captured by a proton to form a hydrogen atom.

The other recorded frequencies of the hydrogen atom are due to localized electromagnetic photons emitted in the same manner when the overexcited electron jumps back to the least action rest Bohr orbit after having been momentarily exited away to move to one of the metastable orbitals further away from the proton, that all are unstable, their energy being the difference between the resonance frequency of the metastable orbital and the ground state orbital frequency.

So we know what photons are. They are the momentum energy released under the form of electromagnetic photons, each time an electron is suddenly recaptured in some least action rest orbital in some atom, either when initially captured or when returning from some previously further away metastable orbital after having been overexcited away from the ground state.

As for electrons, we also know quite a bit about them, all confirmed by the Milikan experiments:

Invariant electric charge: 1.602176462E-19 Coulomb

Invariant rest mass: 9.10938188E-31 kg

We know since the Kaufmann experiments that this mass increases with velocity. Confirmed by Abraham, Lorentz, Planck, Neumann, Bucherer and Einstein himself as stated in Abraham Pais biography of Einstein.

We know since the 1930's that the electron rest mass itself is made of electromagnetic energy, since the experiments of Anderson, Blackett and Occhialini in the 1930's have experimentally demonstrated that they can come into being with an accompanying positron from decoupling electromagnetic photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more (twice the energy of an electron) when such photons generated by cosmic radiation graze atomic nuclei in bubble chambers.

We even know that such pairs of massive electron-positron can come into being by photons beams being focused to a single point in space if one of the beams contains photons of 1.022 MeV or more since the McDonald et al experiments at SLAC in the 1990's.

If all of this is not taught anymore within the walls of university physics courses, it still is being taught outside their walls. I strongly suggest that it be re-introduced in the physics courses.

You wrote: "Physics does not have a reasonable and precise definition of "force"

I think it does. In mechanics, Pressure is the Force exerted over an area:

P=F/A

In other words, the dimensions of a Pressure is Newtons per square meter (N/m2)

If we reduce the area to an infinitesimal ds surface P=F/ds for calculation purposes, then the surface of application becomes punctual for all practical purposes instead of being spread over a wider surface, and then we have P=F in newtons (N).

So a force is then a pressure exerted on a fulcrum, or to a single point of application on any physically existing object or particle.

The question now becomes "A pressure exerted by what?"

My view is that it is exerted by momentum energy in the case of elementary particles such as the electron.

Best Regards, André

That

“…You live in China and have not been touched - you have forgotten the teachings of Lao Tzu! This could be the reason why you don't understand what André Michaud wrote to you.

Please excuse me for being blunt!…..”

- looks as too emotional claim, first of all since it really is a senseless wording that links by some strange way “Lao Tzu” that has no any relation to any science, including, of course to physics, and what André Michaud wrote; while what André Michaud wrote is also some really strange sets of words, say, about some “energy [that] is unified into being a single element or "substance"”, etc.

Though it looks that, despite that the question “what is energy” at all, and what is “energy in Matter” are rather clearly clarified already in the SS posts above and papers that are linked in the posts, it is worthwhile to repeat some points:

“…[AM quote] "Isn't there an inherent contradiction between these two issues? If energy is unified into being a single element or "substance", then these assumed "different forms" can only be different ways that the same single element is subjectively perceived or measured."[end quote]

We don't know what a photon is, what an electron is ...... We do not know the origin of energy. Therefore it cannot be denied that there are universal "elements" for all forms of energy. ..”

- though yeah, the “Logos” set “Energy” indeed really remains be mysterious, and we don’t know the origin of energy, but yet now we know that,

- first of all that “Energy” is an “Logos” set’s element, and so fundamentally isn’t someinformational pattern/system, including any "substance", and

- Energy is some “Quantity”, i.e. can be in different “portions”, which is fundamentally necessary be spent at any/every change of any/every informational pattern/system in the “Information” Set, including at creations of specific informational systems/cyclic algorithms particles “photon” and “electron” in the informational system “Matter”,

- what is so because of that any change, including creation of a particle, is logically prohibited. Though that relates to just changes of concrete patterns/systems, say, despite that an electron exists as its constantly running algorithm that consists of ~2.4x1022 “logical gates” and ticks with frequency ω=mc2/ћ ~7.8x1020 ticks/s, if an electron is free this stable - but inherently changing - system doesn’t consume some energy; another examples – stable rotation of some body around some large mass on a perfect circle orbit, etc.;

- that everything in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4] dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures –(at least) [4+4]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]; which are “[4+4]4D Fredkin-Toffoli logical gates”,

- and the disturbances after creation as some logical systems that run basing on the lattice’s “FLE hardware”, always propagate in the lattice – and so in the at least 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D speeds of light, and interact at actions of fundamental Nature forces.

So everything in Matter is determined by ultimately universal properties/parameters of FLEs, so exchange by energy portions at interactions/changing states is ultimately universal, so, correspondingly, in Matter there is no different “types of energy”, and in all cases portions of energy so can be - and so are, ultimately universally measured relating to an etalon/unity, in SI that is Joule.

Quite analogously because of the universal FLE properties the portions of actualizations in Matter “Logos” set elements “Space” and “Time”, which so also fundamentally aren’t some “substances”, etc. “space” and “time” can be, and are, ultimately universally measured relating to etalons/unities, in SI that are meter and second;

- and in all cases there fundamentally cannot bee, and so aren’t, some “elements”, “primitives”, etc., of energy, space, and time.

Besides the fundamental Nature forces aren’t “F=ma and F=eE forces”, that are logical rules that govern in Matter different types of interactions of the disturbances, first of all – particles [how that really concretely happens see the SS&VT initial models at leas of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces in papers that are lined in SS posts above], while, since really in Matter everything exists and interacts just on FLE – Planck scale – level,

- and, since “energy” in Matter acts as a “dull”/completely universal factor at any changes/interactions, so the results of concrete interactions are mostly determined just by “sematic” of interacting patterns/systems; on macroscale that looks – and really in most cases only possible to introduce in physics - as different “types of energy”; but, again, in this there is no any principal problems, including any “thermo” , “kinetic”, “nuclear”, etc. energy are measured only relating to universal with all other scales unique etalon.

Cheers

The information theoretical aspects of these solutions are determined upon applying the island rule for the entanglement entropy. Like nonextremal charged pleated spaces as entanglement of subparticles’ energy manifolds, the radiation entropy grows linearly in the no-island configurations. Univalent functions are complex, analytic (holomorphic) and injective functions that have been widely discussed in complex analysis. It was recently proposed that the stringent constraints that univalence imposes on the growth of functions combined with sufficient analyticity conditions could be used to derive rigorous lower and upper bounds on hydrodynamic dispersion relation, i.e., on all terms appearing in their convergent series representations. Whether the same conditions are also satisfied by all other examples of theories that satisfy the conformal bound manifolds on energy fronts remain an open problem. On the other hand, what we also know is that a significant amount of ‘fine-tuning’ is needed to develop a similar univalence condition that could demonstrate the violation of the conformal bound. We see this as an important reminder that such complications may in some cases be unavoidable when dealing with sufficient energetic conditions. Nevertheless, with all the relevant caveats and open problems in mind, our observations still give us some hope that in the future, we may be able to use the univalence methods in order to understand the conformal manifoldic fronts of energy bound, as well as other bounds on transport, from a more fundamental perspective through the univalence properties of QFTs.

DETERMINING PROPERTIES OF DARK ENERGY UTILIZING UNIFIED FRAMEWORKS

Authored by

A l e x W o l f I I I

I would say, most certainly, in a purely scientific, physics, and mathematical sense (rather than a more philosophical viewpoint) different types of energy can most certainly be considered “unified”. Start with the framework below.

SCIENTIFIC GRAND UNIFIED THEORY FRAMEWORK EQUATION:

O(x, y, z, t) = B(Ψ_ij) * [M(a, b, c, d) * (x, y, z, ict) + (8π)^-1 * (G_ij + DM(x, y, z, t)) * (T^ij + DE(x, y, z, t)) * g_ij * dx^i dx^j + iħ * (Ψ_ij)^2 * ∇^2Ψ + m * a + E(x, y, z, t)] (fig 1)

KEY (fig 2):

➢ O: Output Vector that describes the position and time of an object in space-time

➢ B(Ψ_ij): Operator that modifies the output vector, by taking into account branching wave functions, born rule, ect

➢ M(a, b, c, d): Matrix operator that determines the mapping from the input vector to the output vector

➢ i: imaginary unit, equal to the square root of -1

➢ c: Speed of light in vacuum

➢ G_ij: Einstein tensor that encodes information about the geometry of spacetime

➢ DM(x, y, z, t): Operator modifying the Einstein tensor to account for dark matter

➢ T^ij: Stress-energy tensor which encodes matter-energy distribution

➢ DE(x, y, z, t): Operator modifying the stress-energy tensor for dark energy

➢ g_ij : Metric tensor that describes the distances between points in spacetime

➢ dx^i dx^j: Space-time separation between two events

➢ ħ: Reduced Planck constant, equal to the Planck constant divided by 2π

➢ Ψ_ij: Wave function that describes the probability amplitude of finding a particle in a certain state

➢ ∇^2Ψ: Laplace operator capturing second partial derivatives of the wave function

➢ m: Mass of a particle

➢ a: Acceleration of a particle

➢ E(x, y, z, t): Operator accounting for electromagnetic interactions

➢ t: represents time

For our example, with the Grand Unified Theory Framework (one of what is likely many viable forms, as we are finding as technology advances), one can see several ways that could compute equivalents of energy within the same framework, to better help understand the interplay to each other in relation to other universal constants. I will carry us through a few ways different types of energy could be reasonably considered unified with a theory such as this, in a matter of speaking which is mathematically consistent/physically consistent.

I think one may find it interesting to note, this is accomplished by competent acknowledgment of forms of energy as fundamental constants that affect space and time. Placing those within the framework, we can see several types of energy unified,with the resulting differences mathematically and physically between the energy forms mitigated. This includes Dark Energy, and Electromagnetism for example.

So, you may ask, where does one view the relations of energy  not explicitly outlined in the key? Like kinetic energy? Wouldn't it then warrant it's own vector with time and space components to assure the mathematical principles of the Scientific Grand Unified Theory Framework are consistent?

The answer is no. This is due to the redundant nature of emergent properties representing certain forms of energy within the associated Grand Unified Theory framework (which is a concept greatly elaborated upon within the attached research) as well as the placement of certain forms of energy with their own time and space components within the Grand Unified Theory Framework to indicate more fundamental constants of nature. We can start simple. What if someone wanted to study the effect of kinetic energy in relation to Dark Energy or Electromagnetism with the above framework? Or what if we want to use this concept of unifying different forms of energy in a mathematically and physically accurate way to learn about things that are hard to observe? Like Dark Energy? Does that Count? Simple.

There are countless ways to parse things such as this once appropriate values for the variables have been set (unnecessary variables may be reduced or ignored for coherent output).

First, in this example, one would  start by identifying and isolating the types of energy one wishes  to see the effects of. First reduce unnecessary variables in the framework that have no bearing on the final calculation. I.E if you were trying to calculate the effects of kinetic energy in relation to dark energy within the above framework and associated principles, one would: Focus upon DE(x, y, z, t), which modifies the stress-energy tensor to account for dark energy.

If one assumed that DE(x, y, z, t) introduced an additional term proportional to velocity, for example, within the associated principles someone may arrive at a form like DE(v) and still produce mathematically consistent outputs. One could then modify the equation for force (F) to include the effect of dark energy. And now one has a potential method to learn great amounts about Dark Energy by observing what the interplay between other determined accurate values would be. By this, assumptions about properties of Dark Energy can be deduced accurately, and one could further self-authenticate these results by assuring the values set on related parts of the framework remained mathematically consistent with the calculated output for the term being focused upon.

We would then have have something like F = m * a + DE(v),  DE(v), which would represent the contribution of dark energy to the calculation. One could further use physics based principles to model velocity (v) using a modified force calculation. The step would remain the same as before in this example then: v = (F * t) / m. Once one has obtained the velocity, they could then proceed to calculate the kinetic energy.

Again, there are many ways to perform this calculation or calculations like it, but for this example we will use (K) via the equation K = (1/2) * m * v^2. By incorporating the influence of dark energy through the additional term DE(v) in the force equation, one could then reasonably  account for the interplay between dark energy and velocity.

The specific form and properties of DE(v) would depend on whatever the details of how dark energy is mathematically described within the calculations and system based calculations. This helps provide a general outline of how you can calculate kinetic energy to understand the interplay between dark energy and velocity, in this example.

This process and other like it can shine light on w to more accurately describe and calculate Dark Energy via deduction. This gives an example of how different forms of energy can be unified in r in a mathematically and physically accurate way, including elusive universal constructs like Dark Energy which are difficult to obtain data on.

André Michaud I fixed up this answer. Was a bit sloppy before. Thought you might find it interesting or useful. Or at the very least thought provoking.

Dear Alex Wolf III

I think that your material is well presented and coherently explained.

Note that I am not the best judge of such wide ranging developments. My specific interest and specialization was the exploration of the subatomic level of magnitude from the electromagnetic perspective, that mainstream has given up exploring since the adoption by most of the Copenhagen Interpretation, that posits as a dogma that it is not possible to understand the subatomic level any more clearly than the Heisenberg statistical method allows.

My analysis is now complete except for the related beat wave equations that remain to be developed.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Chian Fan

Thanks for your insightful remarks.

This discussion appears to be going toward a theory of everything. A discussion as framed about a theoretical core concept of our universe can go no where else.

The long term goal of thinking to aid human survival has a pattern of considering advance as removing complexity in the models. In physics, this has resulted in 2 (or 3) main concepts (GR, QM, Newtonian) and a quest for less complexity. That is, one core concept to reduce to the main constituents and explain many inconsistent observations. It might be nice to make a few predictions the accepted models fail to describe. Interesting how the goal has to be human survival but the organization, morals, and humanity (religion) is omitted.

So, becoming simpler is a key concept. Saying ``energy'' and allowing many different forms seems directly along the path to a Theory of Everything (TOE). I suggest the problem with this approach is that the different forms have different concepts and calculations. That is, ``energy'' is too abstract. To use it requires immediate implementation of all the complexity different core models imply. A very reductive approach.

Humanity has been at the edge of this chasm for too long.

Perhaps a better approach would be to start with an emergent approach. Each of the energies requires a different form of force exerted on different objects. Perhaps there is only 1 force and the objects differ in form and response (structure of lesser bodies - 1 type of lesser body the Greek ``atom''). Now all we need is the emergent components of the universe and a means to create them (origin story such as the big bang or the world is on the back of turtles).

André Michaud insights can go a long way.

Because measurements collapse quantum states, we might as well consider a setup in which nodes randomly sample a subset of the entangled qubit pairs to measure and then estimate the average fidelity of the unsampled energetic pairs conditioned on the measurement outcome. Bound entanglement, in contrast to free entanglement, cannot be distilled into maximally entangled states by two local observers applying same-energy-level measurements and utilizing classical communication. However, most applications of this methodology rely on simplifying assumptions, belying a number of potential complexities. As a result , Extended network entanglement theory (ENET) derives from a combination of two theoretical ideas: complexity theory and weak quantum theory. The theory suggests that generalized entanglement evolved initially as a form of communication within the multibody system needed to enable the said system to self-organize according to specified patterns, and then as a form of data-transduction between manifolds which form more complex groups. The strongest challenge to (weak) emergence is from parsimony principle of least inter-manifold data transcription . Recently, the revelation that info transformation has received further attention from researchers has caused it to be fairly well-known that that the active redundancy at component level results in a more reliable coherent system.

Dear John Hodge

You mention GR,QM and Newtonian mechanics.

Do you realize that GR dates back 108 years ago, Newtonian mechanics dates back 336 years and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM dates back 96 years?

You did not mention SR, that dates back 118 years.

I don't know if the mainstream community realizes that none of the experimental discoveries made since were integrated into any of these theories.

Two more domains are not mentioned in the list.

Electromagnetic mechanics that the community decided to abandon research about in 1907, and the kinematic mechanics of the subatomic level that the community decided to abandon research about in 1927 to the benefit of the so damaging Copenhagen interpretation of QM that has prevented any more research into the possible electromagnetic nature of particles at the subatomic level and into both the possible kinematic mechanics and the electromagnetic mechanics of these particles at the subatomic level for the past 96 years.

To be coupled with the absence of any research about electromagnetic mechanics already left behind in 1907 about the same subatomic level of magnitude,

I suggest that the community wakes up.

André Michaud

The times - Yes I realized he inception dates and the core concepts haven't changed. You correctly added Maxwell and EM to the list.

Humanity has been at the edge of this chasm for too long. I add human morals.

Also and yet, there has been observational evidence that indicates a Kuhnian paradigm shift is required. Fro example, spiral galaxy rotation curves didn't fit. So, dark matter was applied. That is, an ad hoc correction was made. There are too many unexplained observations and inconsistent observations as well as the ad hoc stuff. I would add the concepts of human organization and morals should be included. For example, Birth of new entities in life and in the observed mineral world start small and grows with (w)holism emergence. Yet, the Big Bang model suggest all energy came at once and the universe has been adiabatic ever since.

The energy concept of this question may be a path to unite the models. But I suggest that path is presentism modified with what exists are forces (1 force - gradient of one of the components of the Universe and position which include extended objects. Time is NOT extended.

I'd be interested in a 1 energy model.

I don't know the answer but clear to me that this discussion will lead to a theory of everything which we don't have yet. Philosophically I would like someone to come up with a theory to simplify the universe into a combination of ON-OFF two-state systems just like how we create a virtual reality with just the ON and OFF of a digit in computer hardware. Because this binary description should work with both matter and non-matter predominantly photons, further understanding the nature of photons might be a key point to invest.

Because Maxwell says photon is electromagnetic radiation, thus experiments on photon-photon interaction, photon-electric interaction, photon-magnetic interaction, and photon-mater interaction are desired. We have ultrafast lasers and synchrotron radiations now which could redo historical experiments in more precise ways than those carried out 100 years ago. One interest report earlier this year is the laser fusion reactor but whose focus was fusion reaction rather than light-mater interaction.

Dear John Hodge

You wrote: "Humanity has been at the edge of this chasm for too long. I add human morals."

From my analyses, the human defined concept of "morals" is only a reflection of our genetically programmed survival instinct. Give people security with respect to their social environment and their "morals" (caring for more than self) will drift in the positive direction – first towards the local group, family, and then wider groups, just like with all other gregarious species.

You wrote: "For example, spiral galaxy rotation curves didn't fit. So, dark matter was applied."

This is grounded on the idea that GR is a correct representation of physical reality, also involving as an axiom that universal red shift increase as distance increases away from us is due uniquely to increasing velocity of far bodies, and the axiomatic Big Bang assumption.

You may be surprised to learn that spiral galaxy rotation curves did fit from simple Newtonian classical mechanics before GR messed up all previously experimentally validated observations, because macroscopic bodies, including astronomic masses, cannot possibly move at relativistic velocities, at best from my calculations in the low hundreds of km/s. The relativistic range, starting in the vicinity of 2000 km/s level can be reached only by elementary particles at the subatomic level of magnitude. It simply makes no sense that the farthest galaxies would be nearing the velocity of light.

Without totally excluding a Doppler effect velocity component, increasing red shifting with distance can easily be explained from simple common sense that each time the trajectories of photons coming in are deflected from straight line motion by being deflected as they pass by masses, they expend some of their energy as work. The farther away they are emitted, the more red shifted they are likely to become on this ground alone.

You wrote: "For example, Birth of new entities in life and in the observed mineral world start small and grows with (w)holism emergence."

Plain common sense observation.

You wrote: "Yet, the Big Bang model suggest all energy came at once and the universe has been adiabatic ever since."

On my part, when a concept contradicts common sense and observation at face value, I tend to at least question it, and look for alternatives that are likely to better fit in with observation.

You wrote: "The energy concept of this question may be a path to unite the models."

Obviously, in my view also. All classical force equation can already be mathematically proven to all be various representation of F=ma.

Since a=v2/d, d being the distance between two bodies and the dimension of F being Newton (N), then given that the elementary sub-dimensions of the Newton is joules per meter (j/m), if you multiply the force by the distance between two bodies, you get the energy in joules induced in each body considered. The same for all force equations, including the Coulomb force applied to individual charged particles.

You wrote: "1 force - gradient of one of the components of the Universe and position which include extended objects."

For mathematical calculation purposes, any extended object can be replaced by its punctual center of presence. This is what is being done since Newton for all trajectories calculations.

You wrote: "Time is NOT extended."

Exact. It is not even involved. When energy induction is involved, time is not. Energy induction depends strictly on the distances separating bodies or charged particles, irrespective of the time elapsed.

You wrote: "I'd be interested in a 1 energy model."

Well, if F=ma=eE as Einstein stated in his 1910 article and if all other classical force equations turn out to be alternate representations of F=ma, then you have de facto your 1 energy model.

It is from this perspective that I have been analyzing the subatomic level these past 25 years.

Best Regards, André

John Hodge Oh how I wish these attitudes persisted in academia, research and R&D. A man can dream. The world, I believe, would be virtually unrecognizable. I believe we are in a scientific "lull" or ice age. But with the advent of AI and regularizarion of it, as well as shifting attitudes for societal reasons, I believe this inevitable and absurdly beneficial change will appear in short order. We are analogous to cavemen with fire in respect to AI. We have a very small sample size of data to work with on this. It's not an opinion, it's extrapolation of an inevitable nature. It shows very well how science can be incubated to an exponential degree in an amount of time we wouldn't have thought possible before. If you had told me three years ago that I would be talking to an AI probably more than humans, asking it for advice like how to cook a good gyro, I would've thought it was LITERALLY impossible. I would've assumed someone saying that was literally off their rocker. Well three years ago GPT was already in development. Most average people just werent aware of that. Id say an overwhelmingly large majority of humans, even scientists were only vaguely aware of that. We have no way to know what other massive advancements are lurking just below the surface now, being prepared in a competent and feasible way. I expect these massive and paradigm shifting advancements will become increasingly more and more common and frequent until it reaches a point of passive apathy yet recognition such as how the US currently views mass shootings. @André Michaud

André Michaud

``..."morals" (caring for more than self) will drift in the positive direction – first towards the local group, family, and then wider groups, just like with all other gregarious species.''

This `moral' is one that causes many societies to collapse as seen in socialistic societies. Societies that become socialistic die soon. All of nature shows the continues support of those weak individuals with no hope of returning the energy (resources) to the group are killed.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329209019_Survival_is_the_only_moral_goal_of_life?_sg%5B1%5D=

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=694

The quote was meant to reject the ad hoc addition of dark matter.

Rotation Curves (RC) before Vera Rubin's study didn't include the outer (beyond light sources - stars) of Hydrogen gas (the HI RC). Typically they involved H\alphs (ionized gas) from near stars. Newtonian mechanics kinda worked. With Rubin, the RC should decline by both Newton and GR. They didn't - they are nearly flat or rising. The flat ones were supporting the dark matter assumption. The rising ones reject the dark matter assumption. Further the original presumption of dark matter was fond to be unnecessary because much baryonic matter was fond between galaxies.

Hodge,\,J.\,C. 2006c. {\it{Scalar potential model of spiral galaxy HI rotation curves and rotation curve asymmetry}}.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS\_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0611/0611029v2.pdf.

Hodge,\,J.\,C. 2006b. {\it{Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift}}. {{NewA}}, v.\,11\,(5), 344--358. http://www.arxiv.org/PS\_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602344v1.pdf.

The F=ma concept present many conundrums. What is inertia? How does Mach's principle apply? I think, only the STOE has a valid explanation of Mach's principle. Most model ignore or struggle with inertia. The difference between gravitation characteristics and inertial characteristic of bodies present another ad hoc assumption of equivalence. Equivalence principle have the weird and unacceptable characteristic of have an equals sign (=) in the assumption. Postulates should NOT include an equals sign. Instead, the postulates should result in deriving equalities.

The `a' part is also an issue which is at the heart of GR. It implies reference frames and a extended time concept. For my part, I accept the presentism concept with the addition that only spatial position and forces exist NOW. No past - no future.

Time must be included in energy calculations such as a moving magnet calculation of induced electric field.

The point particle concept is widespread but has many problems. It avoids the need to question structure. The STOE considers the plenum, whose gradient is the 1 force, obeys the heat equation which yield the spherical symmetry.

There are many types energies that are not reducible to F=ma such as friction which may yield entropy. GR and QM ignore friction in the Hamiltonian and LaGrange formalisms. Certainly, friction must be included in energy models.

I've been reading your excellent papers as a prelude to replace Maxwell's Equations as required by the experimental rejection of them.

Alex Wolf III

You may be interested in

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

Dear John Hodge

You wrote: "This `moral' is one that causes many societies to collapse as seen in socialistic societies. Societies that become socialistic die soon. All of nature shows the continues support of those weak individuals with no hope of returning the energy (resources) to the group are killed"

As I mentioned, the human defined concept of "morals" is related to the genetically programmed survival instinct of the individual, and by extension to the genetically programmed reflexes meant to insure the survival of the species.

In the first forms of unicellular life that appeared on the Earth, the reactions of self-preservation of each individual insured to a large extent the survival of the species. Given that the reproductive mode by cellular division generated astronomical numbers of individuals when conditions were favorable, those numbers themselves were a good insurance against accidental disappearance of a species.

As time went by, more complex species appeared, until came into being species whose offsprings required some maturation time before they reached the full survival potential of the adults, due to their higher levels of biological complexity. During this growth period, the offsprings are naturally more vulnerable to attacks from predators. The species whose adults took up the task of protecting the young during this period increased the chances of survival of those young and by repercussion, increased the chances of survival of the whole species.

Eventually, species living in extended family groups, packs or herds appeared in which each member, if not personally threatened by danger, tended to show behavior that favors the survival of the whole group, such as warning yells, tight grouping around the young, etc...

The reactions stemming from pure individual self-preservation instinct without considerations for the survival of other members of gregarious species keep on dominating in members of these species only when the individual is directly threatened by a predator or other danger. Also, within these gregarious species, each family, pack, etc. tends to protect a certain territory against incursions from members of other families, herds, etc. of the same species when the individuals perceive that this territory that they perceive as being their vital space is threatened.

Being the ultimate end product of the process of evolution of species on the Earth, there is no doubt that as a gregarious species ourselves, we have inherited these genetically programmed instinctive behavioral traits. But always careful to clearly mark the distinction between themselves and the inferior species, humans have given special names to those behavioral traits when they apply to themselves.

So, humans relate moral considerations to reflex reactions fundamentally emerging from our genetically programmed survival reflexes, ranging from individual survival to species survival, and have named altruism the manifestations of preservation when they ultimately tend to benefit the group and egocentrism the same manifestations when they ultimately tend to benefit only the individual himself without consideration for the consequences for other humans.

If we consider that in species biologically close to ours, when the individual does not feel a threat to himself, his protective behavior seem to naturally operate to the benefit of the group, we could expect that the same pattern will be present in humans. What then could explain that so many manifestations of non-productive egocentrism of all sorts are to be deplored in our species?

In the framework that we are considering, we easily draw the conclusion that it would be because the individuals concerned feel insecure, and perceive themselves as being threatened in some way. That's what I meant by mentioning that if people are individually made to feel more secure with respect to their social environment, their "moral" behavior will tend to evolve positively from focusing on personal survival towards survival of the species.

You wrote: "The F=ma concept present many conundrums."

Not at the subatomic level with respect to interaction between elementary charged particles. At this level, it is in perfect harmony with all other classical force equations.

You rhetorically ask: "What is inertia?"

At the subatomic level, it is straightforward defined in harmony with that of classical masses in Newtonian mechanics. It is the resistance of a quantum of energy electromagnetically oscillating in standing mode on the transverse plane to any change of its state of motion.

You wrote: "How does Mach's principle apply?"

This is an issue that I did not have to deal with, since rotation does not exist at the level of elementary particles inner structures. From my analysis, only cyclic reciprocating motion turns out to be possible. Self-sustaining cyclic rotation as the only option does not seem to emerge before the macroscopic level of magnitude.

At his level, you have two possibilities due to the expenditure of energy as work needed to sustain the constant change in directions of the particles making up the rotating mass.

For uncompensated mechanically induced rotation, the rotation velocity will inevitably diminish over time, while for permanently compensated rotation – such as the rotation of the Earth – rotation velocity will be maintained by the energy naturally induced that maintains its state of stationary action equilibrium.

You wrote: "Time must be included in energy calculations such as a moving magnet calculation of induced electric field."

Not sure what you mean here. But for elementary electromagnetic particles, the instantaneous amount of energy of each particle is adiabatically induced strictly as a function of the inverse of the distances separating them at any given moment, and varies infinitesimally progressively with any variation of these dstances. Time is involved nowhere in the process.

You wrote: "The `a' part is also an issue which is at the heart of GR."

Maybe, but since GR can only be wrong with respect to what the electromagnetic nature of all particles making up macroscopic masses reveal, I have no opinion on this issue. All particles in the universe can only exist simultaneously at the NOW moment, contrary to Einstein's conclusion.

You wrote: "The point particle concept is widespread but has many problems."

The "point particle concept" is only an idealized mathematical means to calculate trajectories of elementary particles, atoms, molecules or macroscopic bodies by representing their "center of presence" by a mathematical dimensionless point. Used since Newton to calculate trajectories, or their relative location in vector fields.

But these "points" are not the elementary particles, atoms, molecules or macroscopic bodies themselves, just a convenient place-holder virtual mathematical means to represent them.

You wrote: "It avoids the need to question structure."

Not in my view, since the point mathematical representation is not the real object.

I remain permanently aware of the Earth structure, at least what I know of it, even if I can calculate its orbit about the Sun as if it was a mathematical point located at its center of presence. The same for elementary electromagnetic particles.

You wrote: "There are many types energies that are not reducible to F=ma such as friction which may yield entropy. GR and QM ignore friction in the Hamiltonian and LaGrange formalisms. Certainly, friction must be included in energy models."

Certainly, but seen from the subatomic electromagnetic perspective, they all relate to the adiabatic nature of the energy induced in each particle making up these macroscopic masses, that varies adiabatically with the distances separating them. Friction energy from this perspective also is covered by the same force/energy equations.

About the classical entropy concept, at all levels of magnitude, the amount of energy induced in all charged particles of which all masses are made cannot go below the adiabatic level mandated by the inverse of distances separating them. All systems already stabilized in stationary action resonance states in the universe are consequently permanent established in these states.

You wrote: "I've been reading your excellent papers as a prelude to replace Maxwell's Equations as required by the experimental rejection of them."

Thank you for the appreciation, and good luck with your project.

Best Regards, André

Alex Wolf III

I congrat you on That analogy :

" I believe we are in a scientific "lull" or ice age. "

it is truly a brilliant one .....................

As though we were living in the middle ages !!

Respectfuly

REZA

André Michaud

Survival

Humanity has survived for the last many thousands of years and has evolved to care for those who may be non-contributing but who have the HOPE (one of my big goals) of contributing to society. So, babies can grow and respond more to the environment rather than rely on instinct. Thus, has humanity evolved. But more recently and with the advance of larger and larger societies (a positive advance toward survival) we have had to learn many lessons - from family groups, to tribal, to chiefdoms, to states, to nations. There are only 2 true nations comprising many religions and ethnic groups, the US and Russia. But what about spending resources to support those who have NO HOPE of contributing to the society - the druggies, the criminal, the permanent welfare recipient, etc.? Not many years ago, the sick and infirm could not be kept alive. Nature solved this problem for us. Even a thief was excommunicated or killed (thus preventing his further harm). Technology and large size of states and nations has created these challenges to human morals. The next world order must solve the issue of the NO HOPE people. Humanity must learn to obey nature's rules. This is a lesson for physics as well - we should not cling to models which have demonstrated a need for change or change against nature's rules.

F=ma is classical and larger issue you mentioned. I suggest it doesn't exist in the classical sense (gravity) at the atomic scale and smaller - it's magnetic. I also reconsider that particles do not carry charge - so the strong and weak forces are unnecessary ad hoc additions. Yes, I know a bit of history. But we're seeking the next paradigm.

Inertia

Yes, oscillating. The wave equation requires some inertia. But the point particle construction derives from the spherical principle of Newton and that derives from the heat equation which does not involve inertia. And that is the conundrum. In the STOE universal equation, 2 of the term are from the heat equation, 1 has a cos() term (the force on a particle). So, which equation dominates the universe and sub-atomic levels? What is actually going on?

Faraday's law and Ampere's law in Maxwell's equations.

``Presentism'' ( if I got the word correctly) is part of the fringe philosophy. IMO the block universe which accepts the past as real but the future is not is not physics. To me, there is only the NOW and those equations that can be run backward are inaccurate. Causation MUST be a much bigger part of physics. All of our equations must be causative. That is time is not extended and the GR treatment of 4 spacetime is the source of many problems. But what exists is the components of the universe and the 1 force which CAUSES the next now (we must also predict).

point particles

I suggest the study of sub-atomic particles must derive much of their properties from their structure. IMO, so, the smaller the particle the more important is structure. That is, using the math of point particles is missing important understanding of particles (IMO) and is limiting further advance.

It may surprise you, but I agree to a degree. Friction in the STOE is spalling of hods from the structure. Such is the reason for redshift of light from distant galaxies. The STOE structure of the photon is a column of hods. Is friction responsible for the short life of quarks?

I'm always interested in your comments. I hope my comments can help you.

Dear John Hodge

You wrote: "Humanity has survived for the last many thousands of years and has evolved to care for those who may be non-contributing but who have the HOPE (one of my big goals) of contributing to society."

Yes. I have given quite a bit of thought to these issues to. If interested, my analysis is summarized in this article:

Article Study on General Neurolinguistics and the Comprehension Ability

You wrote: "There are only 2 true nations comprising many religions and ethnic groups, the US and Russia."

I don't think so. They amount to only a small fraction of the total human population.

You wrote: "The next world order must solve the issue of the NO HOPE people. Humanity must learn to obey nature's rules."

Well, what humanity must do now is to get off this planet as soon as possible to have any hope of survival. Until then we are at the mercy of any global catastrophes such as those that wiped out other species. At this point in time, all else is little potatoes in my view.

You wrote: "F=ma is classical and larger issue you mentioned. I suggest it doesn't exist in the classical sense (gravity) at the atomic scale and smaller - it's magnetic."

Yes. F=ma is classical, and so is the Coulomb equation, but as Einstein noted in 1910, both provide exactly the same force for the moving electron, and both are applicable as well to the atomic and subatomic scales as to the macroscopic and astronomical scale.

Despite appearances, the Coulomb equation also provides for the magnetic aspect of energy, which is something that becomes quite obvious in the trispatial vector space geometry. Put in perspective in my last article:

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

You wrote: "so the strong and weak forces are unnecessary ad hoc additions."

I agree. The invalid inheritance of the Copenhagen interpretation. They totally lost their way and dragged all of current mainstream off the cliff with them.

You wrote: "But the point particle construction derives from the spherical principle of Newton and that derives from the heat equation which does not involve inertia"

Well, as I mentioned, the idealized notion of representing a body with a dimensionless point that would be located at its center of mass (center of presence) is only a "mathematical tool" convenient to do calculations. Just like the word "horse" is not the actual animal that we name a "horse", the "point" used in calculations is not the actual particle, or whatever other physically existing entity that we are calculating the trajectory of, or location that we relate it to with respect to other physically existing entities in vector fields.

Mathematical descriptions and calculations is one thing, and the physically existing entities that we represent with these mathematical descriptions is something else entirely.

Whatever we think that these entities are, is not changed whether or not we describe them well or not with our mathematics. It is up to us to get our descriptions right if we are to benefit from accurate knowledge about them.

Physical reality and what we think it is are two entirely different things. "The map is not the territory" as Korzybski said. If we draw a bad or incomplete map, we are likely to end up in an unmarked physically existing ditch along the way as we move in the real territory while being guided by an incomplete or wrong map.

You wrote: "1 has a cos() term (the force on a particle)."

Yes. Your cos() term relates to the momentum energy induced in each charged particle by the Coulomb interaction.

You wrote: "So, which equation dominates the universe and sub-atomic levels? What is actually going on?"

That's what I put in perspective in my last article, referred to above from both the kinematic and electromagnetic perspectives.

You wrote: "``Presentism'' ( if I got the word correctly) is part of the fringe philosophy. IMO the block universe which accepts the past as real but the future is not is not physics. To me, there is only the NOW and those equations that can be run backward are inaccurate."

"Presentism" is quite an appropriate neologism in my view. I vote for it. And as mentioned previously, I completely agree that all in the universe exists only at the NOW moment. This is something that Einstein disagreed with and that I analyzed in depth, with the implications, in this other article:

Article Our Electromagnetic Universe (Expanded republication PI)

You wrote: "I suggest the study of sub-atomic particles must derive much of their properties from their structure."

Complete agreement. They can derive most of their properties from their structure, the rest of their properties being those of the "energy substance" of which they are made. Put in perspective in the articles above.

Seems to me that our models are not very far from harmonizing. I also am always interested in your comments.

Best Regards, André

We seem to have deviated quite a bit from the topic, although I think it related.

I consider your paper on altruism as recommending a specific approach to social issues. For my part, I think humanity does not have the knowledge to organize around any one theoretical view. I think the primary goal is to stop war - it destroys too many assets. I agree we must get off this rock. So, why is almost all our effort spent in exploring other planets and war. The other planets are just as doomed as Earth. If humans are to live on ships, we'll eventually loose all bones. So, coming to big potential wells (such as planets) will not be advisable. Perhaps, this is where we should search for intelligent life - outside the potential wells.

We should create 1 world order first with the idea of allowing nature's rules to operate an the various suggested moral methods such as as yours, perhaps on more like Adam Smith, etc. and do it without war:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329209019_Survival_is_the_only_moral_goal_of_life?_sg%5B1%5D=

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=694

Growth challenge of the United States

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329504002_Growth_challenge_of_the_United_States

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1093

Scalar theory of everything model for steering humanity's growth.

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1310

Well, obviously you like charged particles, I like the 1 force being a magnetic field. What are your thoughts about cosmological matters?

In this question, I think the energy approach has been tried for the last 100 + years (GR and QM) and has generated may advances. But they have reached its limit. there are too many unexplained observations in both the bug and small size scales. I have been thinking about a force approach. I've concentrated on the problem observations using a force approach. A ne paradigm has resulted. Currently, I hung on the difference of the heat equation and the wave equation (both are needed in my Universal Equation). Related, is the concept of propagation of causality (Newton and pre SR considered effects were instantaneous, even SR and the Lorentz transforms make little distinctions between a real change in rods and clocks in moving systems and the measurement in an observer system).

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

I read your papers.

The series of rather strange posts that have really no relation to the thread question, and mostly to physics at all, looks as too long already; so it looks as wormhole to point here that the last posts, where the thread question is answered, are two the SS posts on page 3.

Cheers

Dear John Hodge

Thanks for the many links. I took note to read at leisure.

You wrote: "I consider your paper on altruism as recommending a specific approach to social issues."

This is just the topmost general perspective. What I recommend is to make the most of what our neocortex allows us to do. It is a 6-layer neural network correlator, whose functional properties are summarized in this article from the up to date analysis of the historical formal sources:

Article Advancement on the Mechanics of Conceptual Thinking (Republication PI)

and whose optimal reasoning mode by successive perception of coherences, that insures eventual objective comprehension of any issue, is synthesized in the last part of this other article:

Article Relating the Comprehension Ability to the Neocortex Verbal A...

All historical formal references are provided, with direct links to those that are directly available on the internet.

About getting off this planet, I mean that if we are living in more than one location in the universe, there is little chance that we could be wiped out of all of them simultaneously. This would insure the long term survival of our species.

You ask: "What are your thoughts about cosmological matters?"

My analyses of the historical formal sources on this issue are regrouped in these two articles published in 2013:

Article The Corona Effect

and

Article Inside Planets and Stars Masses

Like for the first two above, all historical formal references that were analyzed are provided, with direct links to those directly available on the internet.

In the latter, the 4 so-called "forces" are dis-entangled from the trispatial perspective, strictly ending up as being the Coulomb interaction.

No other "force" seems required to explain all interactions in the universe, local as well as non-local, at all levels of magnitude, given that all masses are made only of charged particles.

Best Regards, André

Many cosmologists Chian Fan think that the origin of energy lies in so-called quantum uncertainty, which is known to allow energy to emerge literally from nowhere; many scientists believe that the total energy of the universe is zero; there was never any need to create energy or matter.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis is the maybe simplest explanation of your query, as outlined in 1973 by Edward Tryon, who was the first to suggest that our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation.

According to Tryon, the positive energy associated with mass is counterbalanced by gravitational potential energy, which is negative. Also, according to quantum field theory, particles routinely pop into and out of existence. Tryon suggested that the same could happen for a universe.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-isnt-edward-p-tryon-world-famous_b_9471504

https://www.nature.com/articles/246396a0

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

Thank you for the information.

Regarding zero-point energy and vacuum fluctuations, their foundations are too vague. There is no essential difference between having or not having such assumptions. It does not help us to describe the physical basis more clearly. It seems to me that any such assumption, if it is correct, It must be present throughout physics, not just at the beginning, and never be relevant thereafter.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Principally Chian Fan dominant physical reasoning, with respect to your query on the origin or root of energy, rotates around the Big Bang and relativity theory, which comply with theological assumptions of a created universe; am in agreement with your observation that the work of E.Tryon still falls into this ballpark.

It is, maybe, now time to reread (see: pdf) the 8 books of Aristotelian physics to resolve the deep crisis of modern physics ?

“…Many cosmologists …think that the origin of energy lies in so-called quantum uncertainty, which is known to allow energy to emerge literally from nowhere; many scientists believe that the total energy of the universe is zero; there was never any need to create energy or matter.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis is the maybe simplest explanation of your query, as outlined in 1973 by Edward Tryon, who was the first to suggest that our universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation. According to Tryon, the positive energy associated with mass is counterbalanced by gravitational potential energy, which is negative.. ….”

- in the quote above practically every wording is a really senseless composition of senseless words, which were composed by people, who – as all other mainstream physicists, though – had/have fundamentally transcendent/fantastic imaginations about what all really fundamental phenomena/notions - first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Energy”, “Inertia”, “Space” , “Time”, “Information” are; and so prescribe(ed) in their publications to these phenomena/notions corresponding completely transcendent/fantastic properties/events/effects/processes, which really fundamentally cannot, and so didn’t/don’t, exist.

While what is really observed in Mater is, thank heaven, that the fundamental Nature Gravity force acts as only attractive force, and, say, Earth stably rotates around Sun; that no any even rather small, “emerging of energy” because of “so-called quantum uncertainty, which is known to allow energy to emerge literally from nowhere”, happened near Earth with “emerging” of even some little universe in last well more 5 billion of years,

– and nowhere in whole Matter that happened in last soon 14 billion of years, though;

- total energy that is stored in Matter is unbelievably huge, while there is no fundamentally any “gravitational potential energy”; “quantum fluctuation” fundamentally can be only in existent already material quantum systems, and fundamentally don’t exist in any other, besides some purely fantastic, cases; Matter’s space/time/spacetime didn’t exist before Matter’s creation, etc.

Really any really scientific elaborations of any/every really fundamental problem, including, of course, Matter’s Creation and Beginning, is possible only if the fundamental phenomena/notions above are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely at application of the conception to concrete informational system “Matter” in the informational physical model that is based on the conception.

Including in the model there exist unique now really scientifically grounded initial cosmological model, see section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

Etc. - the series of rather strange posts that have really no relation to the thread question continues in the thread; so for those readers who really want to know scientific answer to the thread question it would be useful to read SS posts in pages 1-3.

To read recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO7_Is_there_a_minimum_value_of_m_in_the_mass-energy_equation_Emc2/6 it is useful as well.

Cheers

Stephen I. Ternyik

Is the so-called "origin" of energy the Q-Physics or is it not ??

Respectfully

REZA

Reza Sanaye A bit late, but thank you. I thought the ice age analogy was appropriate. It's not a lull, it's a full on ice-age.

The point of my view Reza Sanaye is what I mentioned: Aristotelian physics should be re-read, with respect to the physical question of eternal vs. created matter; although a full outsider, E. Tyron remained in the basic assumption model of created matter.

The mutakallim , for example, refused the Aristotelian physics of eternal matter, because this collided with their assumption of created matter.

Consequently, the posed question of Chian Fan , in terms of an origin or root of energy, can be answered that energy needs no origin or root, if matter is eternal.

We all know that such a scientific discourse is beyond our current experimental methods, i.e. it is of speculative nature.

Respectable Stephen I. Ternyik

Very unfortunately , during this "hurried" digital capitalism era we are living in , people , not excluding specialists , are in no mood to sit down and read paper books such as : [ Quote ] : " Aristotelian physics should be re-read, with respect to the physical question of eternal vs. created matter; although a full outsider, E. Tyron remained in the basic assumption model of created matter. " ...........

Reza

Yes, Reza Sanaye , by studying the intellectual and methodical history of human ideas, you will miss out on making profit and realizing careerism; science has become a commodity. However,

The real scientist is ready to bear privation and, if need be, starvation rather than let anyone dictate to him which direction his work must take.

Albert Szent-Gyorgyi

When light is emitted from an electron in a hydrogen atom, the momentum of the electron and the momentum of the photon has a ratio 1/2 the fine-structure constant 1/137. Don't know where the extra momentum is from.

In the last section of the new preprint version, I added a calculation on the Bohr radius and the fine-structure constant, please take a read if anyone has any interest.

Preprint From Particle-in-a-Box Thought Experiment to a Complete Quan...

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

You wrote: " Consequently, the posed question of Chian Fan , in terms of an origin or root of energy, can be answered that energy needs no origin or root, if matter is eternal."

But is matter eternal ?

How can you explain than massive electron and positron pairs associating as positronium quickly decay to convert to supposedly massless photon energy? Doesn't that imply that matter is not eternal?

In this case don't we need an answer to Chian's question in line with this possibility?

You wrote: "We all know that such a scientific discourse is beyond our current experimental methods, i.e. it is of speculative nature."

I don't think so. I for one do not think one second that such a scientific discourse is beyond our current experimental method. It has long been established that the energy of charged particles increases as a function of the inverse of the distances separating them at the subatomic level.

How do you explain that electrons closer to nuclei have more energy than those located further away from the nuclei?

Best Regards, André

Dear Jixin Chen

I had a look at your article. You mention at Equation (49) that the ground state energy is 13.6 eV (2.179E10-18) with regard to the de Broglie wavelength.

Note that in his 1924 thesis de Broglie related his "wavelength" to the length of the Bohr atom orbit for its momentum energy, that corresponded to the exact h Planck constant value. The electron runs the Bohr ground state orbit at its classical velocity in 1.59186E-16 second.

The frequency of the energy of the electron in the ground state can be calculated then by finding the number of times the Bohr orbit is run in 1 second, which gives 6.580495968E-15 Hz, which is the exact frequency of the energy calculated with the Coulomb equation between the proton and the electron at the Bohr radius of the ground state.

This gives an energy of 4.359743805E-18 j, and not of 2.179E10-18 j, that is, double the momentum energy that you calculated.

So, the energy induced at the Bohr ground state at the Bohr radius, which is the mean radius of the axial oscillation of the electron in the ground state is double the momentum energy released when the electron is captured by a proton to stabilize in the hydrogen ground state.

This does not means that 13.6 eV is not the momentum energy induced in the ground state. It means only that more than the momentum energy is induced in the ground state. From all appearances, this extra energy is what accounts for the mass increment of the electron at this velocity.

If interested, analysis of how de Broglie established his famous relation in 1924 between the momentum energy of the electron and the hydrogen ground state is given in Section 6 of this article, Equations (42) to (50):

Article Introduction to Synchronized Kinematic and Electromagnetic Mechanics

All of the historical original articles of the discoverers that have been analyzed in this synthesis are provided, with direct links to those that are directly available on the internet.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

you wrote: "How do you explain that electrons closer to nuclei have more energy than those located further away from the nuclei?"

I have the same question and would like to hear opinions from peers.

One of your papers on the Maxwell wave equation has inspired and cited in my preprint:

Preprint From Particle-in-a-Box Thought Experiment to a Complete Quan...

I think when a hydrogen atom is formed from infinite far-placed proton and electron, half of the potential energy is emitted as photons, and half of the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy which follows the de Broglie wave equation, and settle at Bohr radius and prohibit it from getting closer. The ratio between the momentum of the electron and the photon is half the fine-structure constant alpha = 1/137.

So the more energy is kinetic and has a wave nature that is very different from a classical case, and twice the amount in potential energy is lost during the jump. The problem is the angular momentum is not conserved and I don't know why and would like to have your comments. Could our current formula calculate photon momentum off by 137 times?

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "I think when a hydrogen atom is formed from infinite far-placed proton and electron, half of the potential energy is emitted as photons, and half of the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy which follows the de Broglie wave equation, and settle at Bohr radius and prohibit it from getting closer."

Almost, from what I understand myself.

Agreed that half the "kinetic energy" (not "potential" energy) induced in the incoming electron from a far off distance from the proton is effectively released (or more precisely "ejected") when the electron is suddenly stopped in its motion as it is captured by the proton.

But what has never become obvious in the community, in the absence of considering the role played by the Coulomb interaction with regard to the fact that the electron and the proton are "electrically charged", is that this Coulomb interaction is what induced energy in charges particles, and that it does not allow any less amount than 27.2 eV of energy to be induced at the Bohr radius distance in the hydrogen atom. This means, that as the 13.6 eV momentum energy is being released as a bremsstrahlung photon, an equal amount of energy is simultaneously adiabatically re-induced in the electron, so that the total amount of 27.2 eV is maintained after the emission.

This is put in perspective in this article:

Article On adiabatic processes at the subatomic level (Expanded repu...

as for the fine structure constant, you are right in seeing a relation, since the classical velocity of the electron at the Bohr radius is equal to the velocity of light multiplied by α.

And that the frequency of the energy at the Bohr radius (6.580495968E-15 Hz) is the same as that of a of 27.2 eV photon moving at the speed of light.

This is why you see a relation between 13.6 eV (half the energy induced) and α.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud ,

I agree with your statement that the binding energy is 27.2 eV and 13.6 eV used for electron momentum and 13.6 eV used for photon momentum. But there is 137 time difference in momentum thus I suspect that it is from the core. When photon emitted the energy of the system drops and the mass reduced while electron gains kinetic relative mass so proton loses double 13.6 eV mass which might provide the extra momentum needed. that is, the electric attraction is not free and the core has to work hard to maintain it. At Bohr radius the core refuses to pay more mass to electron and the system stabilizes.

Chian Fan back to your question, all energy could originated from mass or all mass originated from energy. mass energy are equivalent as Einstein states.

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "But there is 137 time difference in momentum thus I suspect that it is from the core."

The 137 times difference is between the electromagnetic transverse amplitude of oscillation between the E and B field aspects of the transversely oscillating extra 13.6 eV component on the transverse plane, and its expected standard longitudinal amplitude on the longitudinal plane.

Explained in many my articles in relation with Maxwell's initial interpretation of the mutual induction of the E and B fields. It has no relation whatsoever with the longitudinally applied pressure of the 13.6 eV momentum energy against the transversely oscillating energy of the electron carrier-photon.

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud ,

Because we observe that 13.6 eV photon energy are emitted during hydrogen formation and 13.6 eV photon energy is needed to ionize a hydrogen atom, so the energy of the system is lost during formation.

I believe we have not measured the speed of electron at ground state and we just guess it has 13.6 eV kinetic energy based on the Schrödinger equation. I agree with you that E and B fields has equal energy and interconverting with each other so I think there is on average 6.8 eV in E and 6.8 eV in B making a de Broglie wave. The Hartree energy 27.2 eV is the total mass lost of the core and 13.6 eV emits as photon, 6.8 eV as E field and 6.8 eV as B field of the electron. This is just a guess and my personal interpretation of the Schrödinger-de Broglie-Bohr hydrogen model.

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "Because we observe that 13.6 eV photon energy are emitted during hydrogen formation and 13.6 eV photon energy is needed to ionize a hydrogen atom, so the energy of the system is lost during formation."

Yes. The momentum energy that caused the electron to move toward the proton and that increased adiabatically as it accelerated towards it is released. But No energy is lost by the electron for the reason explained in the article on adiabatic induction of energy by the Coulomb interaction that does not permits that less than 27.2 eV of energy be induced in the electron at the Bohr radius distance from the proton.

Analyzed in the article I referred you to.

You wrote: "I believe we have not measured the speed of electron at ground state and we just guess it has 13.6 eV kinetic energy based on the Schrödinger equation."

I assure you that no guessing is involved. The velocity of a free moving electron depends entirely on the momentary amount of momentum energy energy that it possesses at any given moment. It can be calculated with traditional kinematic mechanics as well as with electromagnetic mechanics, and this has nothing to do with the Schrödinger equation. Analyzed in this article published in 2013:

Article From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell

If you have access to a pocket scientific calculator. You can numerically verify the equations yourself.

You wrote: "The Hartree energy 27.2 eV is the total mass lost of the core and 13.6 eV emits as photon, 6.8 eV as E field and 6.8 eV as B field of the electron. This is just a guess and my personal interpretation of the Schrödinger-de Broglie-Bohr hydrogen model."

This is not a bad guess, but no energy is lost by the core. At the Bohr radius distance from the proton, it is not possible for the electron to have any amount of energy other than 27.2 eV, half of which is its momentum energy, and the other half oscillating between the E and B states on a plane transverse to the direction of application of the pressure applied by the momentum energy.

The total amount of energy transversely oscillating on the plane transverse to the momentum energy is 13.6 eV. In conformity with Maxwell's initial interpretation, when at maximum 13.6 in the E field, it can only be at zero in the B field, and when at maximum 13.6 in the B field, it can only be at zero in the E field. This amount of 13.6 eV energy oscillates between the two states on the plane transverse to the direction of application of the 13.6 eV momentum energy.

As the distance between the electron and the proton progressively changes during the electron axial resonance motion about the Bohr ground state distance, its total energy just as progressively increases as it momentarily comes closer to the proton and just as progressively diminishes as it gets further away than the Bohr radius distances, but when at exactly the Bohr radius distance, it can only have exactly 27.2 eV of energy.

This is what de Broglie discovered before he produced his 1924 thesis.

This is determined by the physically existing Coulomb restoring force, not by the mathematical Schrödinger equation. The latter only allows calculating the 13.6 eV electron momentum energy from the kinematic perspective, but does not take into account the other amount of 13.6 that oscillates transversely, and that was measured during the Kaufmann experiments, as accounted for by Lorentz in his 1904 article.

Best Regards, André

The closer the electrons are to the nucleus, the lower the energy level. The farther the electrons are to the nucleus, the higher the energy level. In the lowest energy level, only one orbital exists that can carry a maximum of two electrons, to answer your question, dear André Michaud It is the other way round.

The progress of physics was based on practical experiments, e.g. Chicago Pile-1, mainly by E.Fermi and L.Szilard, well known for the Einstein–Szilard letter.

Big bang and relativity are not tested but dominant theories, which do support the assumption of created matter (as per Hebrew Bible, Gospel and Qur‘an), i.e. the assumption of created matter goes in line with the exceptional statement: Genesis Chapter 1 בְּרֵאשִׁית

א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Aristotelian physics of eternal matter is, for example, closer to Hindu scriptures and theories of matter, but mainly a product of Ancient Greek religion (Ἑλληνισμός).

The condemnations (1210-1277, Paris) of Aristotelian physics should also be recalled here, with respect to the (forced) shaping of Western intellectual history.

Am in agreement with your statement that the study of the behavior of matter (energy) maybe the key to approach the question of Chian Fan

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

You wrote: "The closer the electrons are to the nucleus, the lower the energy level. The farther the electrons are to the nucleus, the higher the energy level. In the lowest energy level, only one orbital exists that can carry a maximum of two electrons, to answer your question, dear André Michaud It is the other way round."

We obviously did not learn the same physics.

Let's take for example the ionization energies of the Carbon atom electrons.

In sequence:

First outermost electron: 11.26 eV

Second outermost electron: 24.38 eV

Third outermost electron: 47.88 eV

Fourth outermost electron: 64.49 eV

Fifth outermost electron: 392.08 eV

Sixth and last remaining electron: 489.99 eV

Ref: The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 84 th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, page 10-178

The ionization energy of all atoms in the periodic table are well established, and they all go opposite what you stated.

How do you explain this?

Best Regards, André

Viewed simply, electrons are arranged in shells around an atom’s nucleus. Electrons closest to the nucleus will have the lowest energy. Electrons further away from the nucleus will have higher energy. In a more realistic model, electrons move in atomic orbitals, or subshells. The farther away from the nucleus an electron is, the less effect the opposite charge (from the nucleus) has on the electron, ergo increasing its electrostatic/potential energy. Electrons closer to the nucleus also shield the outer electrons from some of the effects of the nucleus. Energy levels (also called electron shells) are fixed distances from the nucleus of an atom where electrons may be found. As you go farther from the nucleus, electrons at higher energy levels have more energy. The maximum number of electrons at a given energy level depends on its number of orbitals.

In this sense, dearAndré Michaud , your assumptions are based on a different reading of physics.

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

You wrote: "Viewed simply, electrons are arranged in shells around an atom’s nucleus. Electrons closest to the nucleus will have the lowest energy. Electrons further away from the nucleus will have higher energy."

Again, how do you explain then that the two electrons of the outermost shell of the carbon atom require only 11.26 eV and 24.38 eV to be ionized away, while the two electrons of the innermost shell require 392.08 eV and 489.99 eV to be ionized away?

You wrote: "In this sense,your assumptions are based on a different reading of physics."

Note that I made no assumption. I just read and quoted the figures on formal record in my copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics of the actual values measured of the ionization energy required to ionize away all 6 electrons of the carbon atom.

What other reading can there be than that the 489.99 eV amount of energy required to ionize away the last remaining electron of the innermost shell of a carbon atom is a larger amount of energy than 11.26 eV to ionize away the first electron of its outermost shell?

Isn't the innermost shell closer to the nucleus than the outermost shell?

Best Regards, André

Dear André Michaud ,

The ionization energy is the energy needed to reverse a binding, the same as moving a rocket out of earth. The closer to the surface the more energy needed to shoot up.

The state is usually labeled negative the ionization energy assuming the highest energy of the rocket earth bundle at far is zero. As I agree with @Stephen I. Ternyik.

The point we have been discussing is the kinetic energy of the electron which indeed is a positive number going up as getting closer. For each kinetic energy, the potential energy of the attraction has worked 2 times so there is a missing energy the same as the kinetic energy which has emitted as photon.

So the system ground state hydrogen has -27.2 eV potential energy +13.6 eV kinetic energy and need 13.6 eV to ionize. The same for carbon except for it has more electrons and the inner shell carries more kinetic energy and potential energy with value -2x kinetic energy.

This is the energy picture and there is the angular momentum picture because if rocket fall, it only gain speed on the radial direction and cannot gain angular speed. So the angular speed can only be either inherited from the beginning which make the total initial energy 13.6 eV instead of 0 ev, or it starts from 0 and gains from falling and emitting photon at the angular direction which push the electron sideway. But 13.6 eV photon only provides 0.1 eV pushing…..:( It is as if this photon carries 0.1 eV momentum at is projecting direction as solar pressure and 13.6 eV side pushing momentum. the unit is use energy but really should be converting to momentum and usually many photons with smaller energy.

In summary, photon could have an inner structure which carries 1 unit projecting momentum and 137 units curled/angular momentum perpendicular to the projecting direction.

Jixin

Energy levels (also called electron shells) are fixed distances from the nucleus of an atom where electrons may be found. As you go farther from the nucleus, electrons at higher energy levels have more energy. The maximum number of electrons at a given energy level depends on its number of orbitals. The farther away from the nucleus an electron is, the less effect the opposite charge (from the nucleus) has on the electron, ergo increasing its electrostatic/potential energy. Electrons closer to the nucleus also shield the outer electrons from some of the effects of the nucleus.

Your mentioned and observed anomalies, dear André Michaud , should be formulated in a research article, but you should keep in mind that your reading of physics deviates from standard teachings. I just told you that official liturgy works the other way round, i.e. it is opposed to your view. That by no means implies that you are wrong or on the false road as the behavior of matter and energy is a key to physical reasoning and progress. You should address your detailed inquiry to a community of learned physicists or scholars; an alternative pathway would be to organize a scientific conference (virtual and/or physical) on this specific matter of your observed anomalies, which are not part of the standard curriculum.

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

You mention: "Your mentioned and observed anomalies, dear André Michaud , should be formulated in a research article, but you should keep in mind that your reading of physics deviates from standard teachings. I just told you that official liturgy works the other way round, i.e. it is opposed to your view."

So you notice that the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics provides figures that don't seem to totally fit with standard teachings. I can only suggest that teachers have a look at the copy of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics that certainly is available from the library of their institution.

You wrote: "You should address your detailed inquiry to a community of learned physicists or scholars "

Well, the whole contents of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics was established by a community of learned physicists and scholars specialized in what was experimentally established at the subatomic level of magnitude. So whatever I quote from this reference work would be no surprise to them.

Again, if the teaching community is not aware of these figures, I can only suggest that they be made available to them by their institutions to ponder about and consider in their teachings.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud I'm betting on ignorance, until I willI be around 80, if still alive.

The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Hoops, I am teaching physical chemistry and indeed often feel that there are historical issues left on the assignment of signs of values and historical none-SI units all over the textbooks. The community is indeed needed to sit down and unify all these assignments but I think it is difficult and may take forever.

Back to the discussion. I don't think there is a problem with the discussion. It is just different angles of the same problem. Language is important to communicate but each Language has its own picture that is physically sound and valid. The key is let's discuss and set the reference point in the same location. This is when Einstein shifted references all the time making my head dizzy.

Jixin

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: " In summary, photon could have an inner structure which carries 1 unit projecting momentum and 137 units curled/angular momentum perpendicular to the projecting direction."

Yes. The transverse amplitude of the oscillating half of the energy of a photon on the plane transverse to the direction of application of the pressure of its momentum energy half is 137 times shorter than the standard classical amplitude of its longitudinally assumed amplitude.

Standard classical amplitude of photon: λ/2π

Real amplitude of the electromagnetically oscillating half of a photon energy on the transverse plane: αλ/2π.

If interested, the mechanics of emission of a bremsstrahlung photon as established from the trispatial vector geometry perspective is described in Section 28 of this article, published in 2020. Indeed, it is the same as the standard emission mechanics of photons by fixed-length dipole antennas:

Article Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation

The internal structure of the photon that you suspect is also put in perspective from the trispatial vector space perspective.

Best Regards, André

Dear Stephen I. Ternyik

I am not as pessimistic. I am contrariwise convinced that the upcoming generation will rectify the global perspective on all these issues.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud ,

You mention: "Standard classical amplitude of photon: λ/2π

Real amplitude on the electromagnetically oscillating half of a photon energy on the transverse plane: αλ/2π."

Great and thank you for the information!

Then we may suspect that the photon has mass. It could be a spindle with mass and angular momentum traveling across space. The torque momentum and the angular momentum have a fixed ratio 137. Can we construct a spindle with this property at the macroscopic scale?

Dear Jixin Chen

You wrote: "Then we may suspect that the photon has mass."

Well, from the double transverse angle of deflection of light deflected by the Sun as measured during eclipses, it can be expected that the transverse inertia of photons would be half of their longitudinal inertia, which seems to be in agreement with the internal structure of the photon as established from the trispatial vector space geometry.

This would mean effectively, that the half of the photon energy that oscillates on the plane transverse to its direction of motion can be understood as having "mass", that is, in electromagnetic terms: "omnidirectional inertia", while the momentum energy half has only "unidirectional longitudinal inertia".

You wrote: "It could be a spindle with mass and angular momentum traveling across space."

Sort of, but in the trispatial model, instead of a rotating motion, this "angular momentum" is concretized as a cyclic reciprocating motion of the energy between the E and B states at the rated frequency of the photon's energy.

You wrote: "The torque momentum and the angular momentum have a fixed ratio 137. Can we construct a spindle with this property at the macroscopic scale?"

Good question. I never thought about this. Maybe.

A note of caution about these developments. Paul Marmet, on one of whose derivations the development of the trispatial electromagnetic mechanics is grounded, was booted out of his tenure in 1999 as an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa for exploring such novel ideas. So, I recommend caution in doing such explorations if you feel that your tenure may come to be at risk.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud ,

It was indeed a sad story and I hope all are free to pursue new perspectives, interpretations, and ideas.

Jixin

Howdy Chian Fan ,

Well, I'm late again. Whoof, what a trip, and what a morning! Even the side issues are interesting, and it is especially noted that when one waits out the reiteration of "the answer," one is rewarded by beneficial insights. After all, if we pause to reflect we shall not expect converts or disciples, although we may contribute to others' "canvas." "Canvas" is my concept for the display that supports one's own thoughts, enlarged by discussion, study, and thought. By the way, I find your treatment learned and also find that your questions come after "knowing about" many issues covered here, asking beyond . . .. Nice.

Physics is not natural. One does not wonder how energy survived before humans described it. Care to hold side-by-side the nature of Nature and the description of observation that has been formalized in science is useful now and then. We learn, and some of what we have learned has been useful until replaced by something better; natural endures. Khunian paradigm shifts occur eventually, but front line science is like violin playing, the notes come from habit while the music comes from feeling it when notes are no longer a bother. "Unplayable concertos" are student pieces when developing habits, and it is up to the replacements to use the new methods: it's too late to form new habits and still get the present job done. Our descriptions do get better, toward the nature of Nature at times.

There is a difference between detailed description of the wings of birds and understanding flight. The extensive data available for a photon and an electron certainly could guide comprehension of "photon" or "electron," but they do not explain what they are: comprehension is beyond description. Similarly, "beauty" and "energy." For instance, in the following quote one worries whether we have something like "phlogiston" (existence, being) or is it like "combustion with oxygen" (existing, becoming) that leads to our experience of flame: "If energy cannot be destroyed, then it must be a real thing that exists, because it makes no sense to say that we cannot destroy something that does not exist. If energy can be transformed, then, in reality, it must appear in a different form. Therefore, based on this concept of energy, one can easily be led to the idea that energy is a real thing, a substance." This may be contrasted with: "However, we must be clear that there is only one kind of energy, and it is called energy. It is stored in different systems and in different ways in those systems, and it is transferred by some mechanism or other from one system to another[9].", which is dear to my heart because energy has been shifted away from "a being" in this quote and has become a characteristic of a system, something about the process of existing by the system. I like to go even further and have noted elsewhere, that even the universe does not "exist" but is "existing" while it becomes its new self during "now."

1) "What is energy, is it a fundamental thing of entity nature, . .." It would seem that I have addressed this question in the previous paragraph. No. Energy is "something about the process of existing" not itself existing, but we are deeply into Essential Philosophy versus Existential Philosophy here. ". . . , or is it just a measure, . . ," well, no, I do not like that, unless we specify "of what" it is a measure and that gets us back to the system's "process of existing" a measure of which is acceptable. "Do the various forms of energy express the same meaning?" Yes. But what is that meaning and what is energy and what is "process of existing" need to be addressed. I think that the meaning comes first and it lies in exploration of "process of existing" for the systems: oscillation, continually becoming itself. The internal dynamics of becoming lie in the exchange of the potential to do work and the work done, while the potential may be stored in a variety of ways and the work performed in compatible ways in "heat, light, electricity, machinery, atomic nuclei", etc. A pendulum oscillation is an illustration of storing potential energy and experiencing kinetic energy. "Can they be expressed mathematically in a uniform way? Is there a mathematical definition of 'energy'?" Does not the energy-momentum tensor of General Relativity perform this task? One may object on many grounds to GR, I don't, and to things written about the approach, I do, but there it is, a mathematical expression of energy enlarged by including momentum derived by both mathematician David Hilbert and physicist Albert Einstein with more than one discussion on the topic in prior months. Can it be done? Yes. Can it be done better? I expect so, since rockets do propel in space.

2) "Is the conservation of energy a universal principle? How does physics ensure this conservation?" I prefer, as you would expect, how does the nature of Nature ensure conservation of energy, and will we ever get it right in physics? Our use of "energy" assures its conservation for us, because any leak during transfer is found to fit in our definition as another form of energy. Does the nature of Nature agree? Well, yes, because energy in natural processes is communal, it is relative to other energy as matter or a gravitational field, for instances. That is, "do work" requires something on which the work is done and it is stored or passed on from that "something." A saying from back home expresses the idea, and for the record I accept it as actual, "How'm I gonna' yump if I got no place to stood?" (Original sound, no cultural slur intended by me. Oh, and I am deeply thankful to all the folks who have been willing to communicate in English here! The dunce doesn't even remember German from college or Mandarin Chinese from self study, sigh. Thank you all.)

3) "Why is there a definite relationship between energy and momentum in all situations? Where are they rooted?" Velocity. Mom = mv and KE = mv(v-0)/2.

4) "If the various forms of energy and momentum are unified, given the existence of relativity, is there any definite relationship between them and time and space?" Yes, General Relativity. And we expect it to be improved as all efforts to express our world within our limited knowledge have been improved, or replaced when necessary, over and over.

Fortunately, I need only express my honest opinion here and leave knowledge to the folks from whom Socrates sought so intently to learn,

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall

I must admit that I have trouble with the English language, especially when your ideas involve philosophical concepts and have deep meanings. Like a mist-covered beach in the early morning, one can feel the puffs of air and the hidden light. It is fascinating, but seeing it clearly takes time and waiting.

In my opinion, "existing" and "process of existing" are indistinguishable. If we consider "existing" as a structure and "process of existing" as a behavior, as an interaction, then, in essence, structure and behavior are the same. They are also indistinguishable. Structure is merely a state of relative equilibrium of behavior.

Thanks again for your comments!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

The series of rather strange posts that have really no relation to the thread question, and mostly to physics at all, looks as too long already; so it looks as worthwhile to point here that the last posts, where the thread question is answered, are two the SS posts on page 3,

- if quite briefly – the absolutely fundamental – a “Logos” set element – “Energy” is actualized in the informational system “Matter”, which is based on a simple binary reversible logics, and everything that exist and happens in Matter is/are specific disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [the lattice] is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); the main FLE parameters – “FLE size” and “FLE binary flip time” are equal to Planck length and Planck time, lP and tP,

- by ultimately – i.e. on the Planck scale – unique and universal way, and so really here is no different “energies”, there exist only one ultimately universal parameter of everything in Matter “one dull energy”. More see the SS posts on page 3 and, of course, links in the posts. It is useful also to read a couple of reDzennn comments in https://phys.org/news/2023-08-simulating-creation-photonphoton-collisions.html.

Cheers

Howdy Chian Fan; Fan, Xiansheng, nin hao a?

(Beginning Chinese, 1st lesson, it needs accent marks, and I didn't try the character version - memory fades.)

I am aware of the language issues with the more involved communication of ideas, and I not only sympathize but also recognize that my vocabulary and syntax are unusual to a degree. That is an effort to head off confidence that I mean what the reader expects. I shall endeavor in any way you prefer to clarify, either here or separate email correspondence, but in the meantime please accept my sympathy and empathy. Actually, a poem about a lake that I read in Chinese was clear with magnificent imagery, but I read the Tao Te Ching and the writings of Chuang Tzu in English. By the way, I have a copy of the Tao Te Ching the with character version beside the English translation. A modern Chinese colleague wanted to read it but found that it was essentially incomprehensible, since communication is so influenced by experience with usage, and 2500 years is a lot of use. Your mist-covered beach image is magnificent!

My Plato volume was so worn that I could tell when a friend replaced it after my copy was chewed by his dog. However, essence, being, things, I found to be insufficient and misleading. There is a large difference between "a human being" and a person "being human" in my view, and that is the essential - existential difference that I consider important. Both versions are valid and occur, but they are very different. The difference is central to whether energy is a thing to be passed around or a process modification to transfer and be experienced. I have chosen the latter in keeping with my worldview, but I have always found truth elusive and offer it as just an opinion.

"If we consider "existing" as a structure and "process of existing" as a behavior, as an interaction, then, in essence, structure and behavior are the same." But in my view behavior leads and one finds the structure in that behavior, process. "Structure is merely a state of relative equilibrium of behavior." Yes! Similarly, a being (nominative) is a process of being (gerund), or as I like to clarify, becoming (re-becoming itself during now).

A correspondent on RG complained about my assertion that "centrifugal force" was a fictitious force and I responded with remarks about active force (real) versus reactive force (fictitious). I thought later of an illustration: you are walking in lion country; a herd of potential lion-lunches streaks past you: do not watch them, look for the lioness, and a suitable tree!

After thought: existence versus existing, nominative versus predicative; being versus becoming.

Happy Trails, Len

Dear Leonard Hall (亲爱的莱奥纳多. 霍尔)

Thank you for your generosity! I believe I will benefit from your philosophical thoughts. You have eliminated my hesitation when I need to bother you.

Best Regards, Chian Fan（止岸）

Different forms of energy cannot be unified, otherwise there would not be different forms of energy.

We live in a result, so we cannot be living in the original state at the same time.

--

When an omelet is in front of us, we know two things:

* We can envision the entire omelet as a whole thing;

* The omelet could have only been possible if the source got broken.

--

When a broken toy is found in a room, then we know two things:

* Nothing of the toy disappeared, all is there, just in tatters;

* The special trick that existed originally is gone forever.

--

One cannot look for unification among just the omelet, because the omelet is not the whole, though we can perceive it as the whole thing itself. Unification is a reality that can only exist among the whole. Since there is no whole, there is no unification.

Gödel already proved this with his Incompleteness Theorems, about 100 years ago. Nothing is missing, yet all approaches toward capturing the whole must lead to an Incompleteness.

I discovered among the mathematical building blocks how the prime numbers find their organization (back in 1992, published in 2000), and one step in this intricate system requires the use of zero. That means that zero can be functional, and is therefore found at the largest level.

The egg did break. We do live in a result.

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for bringing us the opportunity to think philosophically!

"Different forms of energy cannot be unified, otherwise there would not be different forms of energy."

Everyone may have a different understanding of "unity". It seems that we need to define "unification" before we can discuss the question of "unification". But how can we define unity when we do not know what unification is? This may seem paradoxical, but it is not without merit. Even if there is no ultimate goal of unification, the direction can always be explored one step at a time.

It is true that naturally existing energies are different forms of energy, but we should also note that these different forms of energy are artificially defined by us and that they are interchangeable. We can ask why they can be converted equivalently if they are fundamentally different things. Assuming that they are all composed of something more fundamental, then this most fundamental thing is a "unified" thing. There is nothing logically wrong with that. Just as we can tear down a stadium and build a library out of its bricks, the bricks are the " unified " thing between them.

It is true that "The egg did break." Broken eggs are made into omelets and cakes. But this also tells us that the egg is the " unified " thing of them.

Can we turn an omelet back into an egg? No, we can't. But there are equivalent transformations at the bottom of physics: e- + e+ ↔γ+γ

"We do live in a result." But we are the result too, we are just the result.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Thank you, Chian, for these questions.

I do call myself a structural philosopher, but I do not call myself a philosopher in general. In philosophy, one works with concepts as the building materials for the philosophy in question. The concepts do not need to 'land' like scientific data must land. Philosophical concepts can 'hang in the air' though must be understood by writer and reader/speaker and listener.

With structural philosophy, the concepts to work with are the structures themselves. As such, it is a bit like mathematics, trying to show an inherent reality that itself is not the same as the full reality one can try to capture via structure.

The decimal system has ten building blocks: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

The binary system has two building blocks: 0 and 1.

These two examples showcase mathematical systems, their structural setups, and their specific building blocks.

It is not possible to unify both systems, since 0 and 1 in each system is distinct from 0 and 1 in the other system. They do not work the same way, and yet they can be applied to anything that can get expressed mathematically.

Describe me a system that has just one building block and I can show you that you are either incorrect about that, or that you picked a system with an all-inclusive nature, including natural opposites.

As example, you may declare planet Earth as unified, and while it is understood what you declared, there is no actual boundary of planet Earth that makes it unified. Where in space would you draw the line? At ground level? At the 1% oxygen level of the air we breath? Space cannot be unified with planet Earth, and yet they are both there. There is no single delineation.

Therefore, Unification in whichever natural form does not exist. One single collection of matter does not make for unification.

Nevertheless, Unification does exist at the artificial level.

Words, for instance, are all artificial, and we can use the word Universe to capture all there is. It is a concept that is all-inclusive. We have made everything one, unified, with a word.

But... that is a hollow unification. There is no real there there. The human brain understands it, so it is handy.

Gödel showed that there is no ultimate unification possible, while Gödel himself was a very Christian man, meaning he did believe in the Unification of everything in God. Yet again, that is a position not in the natural state; there is no evidence of a God other than the entire result(s) in which we exist. We can point to ourselves as the creators of these kinds of words.

Another example is Energy. We can declare that anything that exists has an energized aspect, is made of Energy.

Yet that is again an abstract word, one that does not 'land', but that can be seen among all that is of Energy. Even Energy is not all the same kind and, as proposed, quarks are the reason Energy is not of a unified reality.

The quarks sit in the center of the atoms, whereas the electron moves around it, neutralizing the positive charge of the proton. Proton and electron do not exist in the same reality. The three quarks that make up the proton are not as versatile as the electron is. The quarks are handicapped, so to speak, whereas the electron is whole if it wasn't for its function to neutralize the proton's charge.

It is the absence of unification that brought us where we are.

Yes, I do have evidence for this as well (I gladly explain), just like Gödel gave us his Incompleteness Theorems.

--

That leads me to the final part and that is that we need to know ourselves. It is inside ourselves that we can put two mirrors opposite one another and then get lost inside the multiple reflections. By exposing the two mirrors for what they are, we can stop being lost in the myriad of reflections. We can have our feet on the ground, and having two legs, and not just one leg, helps us move forward naturally.

Having two eyes and not just one, helps us see depth naturally.

Thank you for the questions, Chian. I appreciate them.

About unifying different forms of energy, gravity seems central. Preprint Particles from Gravity (Jul 24, 2021)

Should physics have its own structuralist notion?

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for your answer, and I apologize that it has not been able to respond in a timely manner after inspiring me. This is not because your words lack information and value, quite the contrary, it is because they are very much worth thinking about, so much so that they require large chunks of time and a physical and mental state that is not overly fatigued. However, I must admit that it is still not easy, if not impossible, to accurately understand the ideas you are trying to convey from your analogies, because we are also two different systems of thought.

“Describe me a system that has just one building block and I can show you that you are either incorrect about that, or that you picked a system with an all-inclusive nature, including natural opposites.” Whether or not the ultimate unification of physics can be achieved is, after all, too big a question, so let's put it aside for the moment and discuss the "building blocks". From the discovery of physics and the current Standard Model, we have been able to determine that the material world has basic building blocks. Your quark model is based on them. The building blocks are the basis of all structure, what we are missing is to determine if the more fundamental building blocks exist, and what they would look like if they did.

You said you were a "structural philosopher", I did a Bing search and no one has defined such a title, only Structuralism [1]. That's great! I would like to be a "structural philosopher" if possible. In my view, the essence of the material world is the "material structure" and the " laws of behavior" between them (the way the different levels interact [2], or forces). This is similar to the way that the core of computing is the "data structure" and the "algorithms" (also acting between different levels, which are packaged). It is the structure of matter that gives physical reality, and physical information and the reality of physical information; it is the structure that gives the invariance and symmetry that physics is fond of.

Structures though seem to differ between static and dynamic，they are usually expressions of spatial relationships, such as the static ancient Egyptian pyramids and the moving solar system, both of which have stable, unchanging, symmetrical relationships. But this is only true at the macroscopic level. At the microscopic level, there can be no absolutely static structures, otherwise there would be no concept of static energy. Between the microscopic and the macroscopic, interactions lead to the formation or disintegration of structures at different levels, which corresponds to symmetry breaking in physics. At the microscopic level, structure is not only an expression of spatial relations, but must also be an expression of temporal relations. This is the "certainty" * dictated by the Uncertainty Principle, and the requirement of space-time symmetry† . This brings us back to the question of the unity of "energy", should it be a real thing? Can it be complete in describing all structures and behaviors?

We can see that all physical properties should originate from the structure, i.e., the structure reflects the information transfer and conversion relations between various properties. This is exactly what γ + γ ↔ e- e+ reflects [3]. How does the photon, which originally has no material properties, and which has only a time-varying electric field E and a magnetic field H, assign Fermionic properties? Charge, spin magnetic moment, mass borrowed from the vacuum? It doesn't seem to. It can most certainly only be structure that gives rise to the properties. The charge of the electron is related to the photon electric field E, the spin magnetic moment of the electron is related to the photon magnetic field H, and the mass m of the electron is related to the energy E of the photon‡. All this is caused simply by the fact that a photon traveling at speed c becomes a relatively stationary electron [4] and does not depend on other conditions to provide it.

If the so-called " intrinsic properties ", such as spin, isotropic spin, space-time curvature, cannot be expressed in physical reality, then we will not be able to distinguish between physics and mathematics, which is the same as we cannot distinguish between spirit and matter. If these concepts are correct, then they should find expression in physical reality.

A model is a hypothetical structure, or a hypothetical pattern of behavior, which does not require 'land'. This abstract description shows a transcendental ability, in the spirit of the philosopher, which can 'hang in the air'. But for physicists, the ultimate 'land' is the most comfortable goal.

It seems necessary to introduce the concept of "structuralism" in physics, which emphasizes clear "relations" as much as in linguistics and sociology. Returning to the term "energy", we have no evidence that it cannot be "land". If the basic "structure" in physics is seen as an energy-momentum relationship, can all patterns of behavior (Hamiltonian, Lagrangian) be determined?

Thank you for the opportunity to learn and understand philosophy!

Best Regards, Chian Fan

---------------

Notes

* I personally agree that there is an "uncertainty principle", but I disagree with the physics interpretation of it. E·t≥h, P·x≥h, are supposed to be deterministic expressions. Their essence comes from E=hν (E·1/ν=h; 1/ν~t ), P=h/λ (P·λ=h; λ~x). It is important to realize that a particle's E and P are determined, not arbitrarily assignable. In this way, t and x can be expressed only in terms of the particle's determinate time scale and spatial scale.

† Thus, in general relativity, it is energy that causes time to "bend" and momentum that causes space to "bend". Since the relationship between time and space metrics is governed by the speed of light c=Δx/Δt, it would be more reasonable to see the concept of "curvature" modified to the concept of "metrics" (Δt, Δx, Δy, Δz), which is consistent with SR's "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" concept.

‡ According to the mass-energy equation E = mc2, and its derivation, it can be seen that mass is referenced to photon energy. This means that mass must be a product associated with photons.

----------------

References

[1] Smith, R. G. (2020). Structuralism. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) (pp. 89-96). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10502-5

[2] "How Do the Laws of Physics Emerge?" ; https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO35_The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_9-How_Do_the_Laws_of_Physics_Emerge

[3] "Are Annihilation and Pair Production a Supersymmetric relation?"; https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO22Symmetry_Invariance_and_Conservation_3-Are_Annihilation_and_Pair_Production_a_Supersymmetric_relation

[4] Supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380105087_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model_SSM https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379597414_Converging_and_Dispersing_Cyclic_-_Micro_and_Macro_Patterns_in_Nature

Chian Fan

We can go as fast and as slow as we like ourselves, Chian. Thank you for the warm tone in your words. I appreciate that.

If we look at the material universe, then the very first conclusion should be that there is no unification among all. The surprise is that scientists are not drawing that conclusion, because it is very clear. I can show it with the alphabet, with the decimal system, with the binary system, with any system anyone can think of: All show us an essential separation. Letters and words are not all placed in one and the same spot. They are placed one next to the other.

Why are scientists one-eye blind? Because there is something special going on with zero. Zero allows us to fill in that spot with anything we like.

Building blocks of the decimal system:

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

But... if we want, there are more choices available how we want to consider the decimal system:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

With 2, 2, 3, 4...., for instance, a person declares himself and his loved one as most important.

With 5, 2, 3, 4...., for instance, a person declares the Family as most important.

With 9, 2, 3, 4...., for instance, a person declares the Nation as most important.

We fill in the zero spot any way we like.

If we do not recognize the fundamental nature of zero, then we are going to treat it exactly the way we think it should be treated. And that means that zero is the number that can be misunderstood. It is zero that the human mind fills in as it pleases, or relegates to the sideline as unimportant.

--

To show the beginning of materialization, I will declare the prior state as 1. This 1 represents a whole state, but also the total of all energy there is.

In the Big Whisper model, the normal situation of the prior state was undermined at the end of the prior state. Either due to happenstance or proactively put in place, an extreme circumstance got established, unbeknownst that it would lead to disaster.

In the extreme circumstance, original energy in Zone 2 got churned into a quark soup under enormous pressure and torque. (Zone 1, center. Zone 2, around center. Zone 3, large remainder found all around Zone 2.)

Here, we still have the 1 that is the total of all energy there is. Yet, here, we lost the 1 that represented the whole as being whole. The whole is not uniform anymore.

Then, with moving back to normal conditions, the quark soup aligns itself into neutrons and protons. The quarks could not return to their original format and had to combine themselves to find a new balance. This happened at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, when the quark soup is finally back to normal, released of all that pressure.

Here, we now have many tiny 1s (neutrons and protons), self-based. The 1 representing the total amount of energy is also still around (and always will be), but we did get a zero now for the first time. The zero that is separation between the subatomic particles declares that the whole will always be a thing of the past.

Original state (original for us that is): 1

Current state: 1 + 0 = 1

Today, we have two kinds of 1. The parts, each a 1 by itself, and the whole, which is the collective of the parts.

===

A good structural philosopher will know that there are many structures in language. The word Family points to a structure. The words Solar System point to a structure. But... the word Happy does not point to a structure, but to a state. So the structure of language, of words, points to the ability of using words that can but need not have structure themselves.

In other words, a language is not a single set of words that are all connected structurally. The only thing they have in common is that these words are understood by people speaking that language. Each word belongs to a setting, indicates something specific. Each word contains its own meaning and does not get its meaning from the whole of language.

I like it how in Dutch the word Word is the same in translation as becomes. English and Dutch are related languages. This translation shows that a word is not the real thing itself but has become the real thing. A tree is not a word of course, but when I say Tree you know exactly what I am talking about. We captured a common meaning that we both understand the same way and from that point on the tree is a Tree. The plant became the word.

Very important to see within language is that we have dumped all our thoughts into language, in as far as possible. So, in all our languages of the world, we can see the structures in which people can think.

Concepts, as last linguistic point, are vital for us as well. We say Mankind and Life and Nature and Balance, and everyone understands what we are talking about. But we cannot go and have a drink in a bar with Mankind, or have a good chat with Life, jog around the block with Balance.

These concepts capture a generic state. So, they are not very informative at all, except as generic pointers. Mankind and the 20th Century is a very clear title for a book, for instance. We know more or less what is inside the book, but we don't know exactly what is inside the book. It is not about Nature, animals and the likes. It is definitively about humans. The 20th Century delineates Mankind into that century, with perhaps a quick 19th Century introduction and a 21st Century outlook at the end.

So, the human brain can think big in concepts, quick brush strokes capturing everything without capturing the details of everything. Yet the brain can also not recognize things, like the importance of zero.

--

Had separation not been possible, then we would still be living in the original state of the universe. And we are not. So, we know for a fact that separation occurred, and we know for a fact that it had to occur at a fundamental level, otherwise the adventure would have lasted 15 seconds and then returned to the original state. We would all be one and not need any words.

--

You are absolutely right about the subatomic level. The construction of the protons (three quarks) caused a charge to come into being. The remainder of energy (some say this is as much as 96% of all energy in the universe) had to response to the positive charge of the protons.

The negative electrons were called into material existence, so the universe would remain neutral in charge.

There! We have another piece of evidence that unification is out. Unification cannot exist.

We have a charge at the subatomic level between protons and electrons, plus we have no charge at the universal level.

Two realities, both true at the same time. What more does one need to know for certain that unification is what some would call a brain fart?

We should not fill in zero with the thought that all decimal building blocks are connected. Zero is not 1. One is not 2. Etcetera. These numbers are exclusive in essence, particularly zero, one and two.

--

The photon is not self-based. A quark is self-based energy, but the photon is not self-based. We only see light when we are the receivers. In the night sky, we only see the photons reflected back via the moon. We do not see the photons that are passing by the moon. The night sky is full of photons. We don't see most of them. The universe is loaded with photons. We only see the ones coming our way.

The quarks cannot exist by themselves. They must bond with other quarks.

Again, unification at any level would return us back to the original state of the universe in a jiffy. The Pauli exclusion is evidence that we are not in a unified state. It does not matter that bosons do not follow that same rule. Neutrons and protons are self-based. A boson is not.

Thank you, Chian, for your good questions. I hope this helps you to find your footing in the reality we live in. Reality is bizarre, but that is what we have to deal with. We are all so tiny on a planet that is humongous (except, when we look at the universe, then the planet is also tiny, tiny). I am glad we also have brains that help us to understand this fascinating outcome in which we exist. That is, after we understand that the brain is just a tool, right?

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Thank you very much for your patience and insightful answer.

Zero has indeed played an important role in the development of mathematics, which is a great invention, and it also plays an equally important role in physical theory, such as the Pauli Incompatibility Principle which involves the concept of zero. However, exactly how we should assign the philosophical meaning of zero to physical reality can be a difficult and controversial topic. Please allow me to take my time to understand what you mean.

Regarding the question of "unification", it seems to me that we have not yet come to the point of discussing whether there is a possibility of unification or not. The first thing we should discuss is "how to define unification", "what is the meaning of unification", and "where to unify". Then we can discuss "the significance of unification," "can unification be realized?" "How can the physical world be described without unification?" "If the physical world remains forever humanly unknowable, is God knowable?" and so on.

It's difficult to form a consensus without broad, extensive, face-to-face dialog, but this is by no means a bad thing; I think it's rather a good thing, and allows us to think beyond the surface and not be limited by observed phenomena.

Let's take our time discussing it, and maybe more people will be interested.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

I like your position, Chian, of wondering, questioning. Yet there is a time for acknowledging as well. You are doing the right thing, though, by asking more questions.

The first thing to accept is that each system is complete onto its own.

There is nothing wrong with declaring that 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 represent ALL decimal numbers there are. There is no 11th mathematical building block in the decimal system, so we do not need to look for more.

Then, it is important to understand how we understand these building blocks. So, allow me to show a very specific nature that exist among all of these numbers. I hope I surprise you by declaring that none of these numbers are singular by themselves.

Obviously, 1 would be the number to represent singularity or single-ness. Yet I mentioned before that 1 inside the decimal system is not the same as number 1 that appoints the entire set of 10 numbers. The set is also singular, and so we have two distinct formats of singular. This means that 1, taken at face value, is not singular.

Of course, I switched systems on you here, and we get 1 as singular indeed, but only under the condition that we declare the system then at the same time. Number 1 in the decimal system is singular, indicating a unit. The demand is then made, hopefully clearly, that decimal number 1 cannot be used to appoint the whole, not allowed. The whole is not a decimal number.

A bigger surprise perhaps is that zero is not a singular number. This time I am not facetious, not playing tricks. Zero has at least two distinct functions, although one of the functions is not much of a function.

10

010

000000010

Three times, we see the same total of ten.

With 010, one can see the two functions of zero.

The first zero can be left out, and 10 does indeed hold its total value.

The second zero cannot be left out without altering the total value.

Obviously, the first zero in 010 is a placeholder that does not add value to the whole, and we can actually repeat it as many times as we like, in front of the total number, like the third example of 000000010.

The second zero of 010 has a very important function. It declares that there are ten units and not eleven or twelve. By occupying the location, the zero prevents any additional unit to be added to ten.

So, we have placeholder zero and occupier zero.

--

Anytime a person melds the placeholder and the occupier zero into one zero, that person made himself a Cyclops. His brain will not function properly because he accepted a system in which an unnatural melding has occurred.

Position is cue here, because we can all close an eye and see exactly what a Cyclops would see. Yet none of us has that open eye move to the center of our faces. The eye remained in the position in which it is located. Still, the person looking out must get himself a mirror to see what happened for real. Without the mirror, the person with the closed eye may end up thinking that his eye is in the center of his face. In other words, that person would then accept a fallacy.

The fallacy, or the possibility of a fallacy, must be recognized, and as a result we can place zero in its rightful place in the entire system. It is the system that must be understood clearly. If the system is not recognized, then we could become Cyclopses.

Next, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (or my evidence that zero represents also a fundamental function) is plenty enough to show that no system can be used to jump to the largest of levels, and then express all there is to express.

Just like decimal 1 cannot be used to declare the whole, there is no system that can provide the correct expression that captures the whole.

Note how the word Universe is not part of a system. It is simply a word all by itself that expresses the whole.

--

Unification is easy to declare. If we remove everything superfluous, then we can point to the essential aspect of unification: same at a fundamental level.

Marriage is of course an example of unification. Married folks are not the same as two people having become a single body, but both the piece of marriage paper and each person declaring their marriage a fact is plenty enough to say that each accepts their two-ness as their foundation. Marriage declares a unification that is larger than each of the individuals by themselves, contained within, made real for the entire world to know.

Let's take planet Earth as additional example, because we see a fundamental outcome of one indeed. The planet is one. So, we have an entire system, which is complete. Yet desire to declare a reality that is larger than just the planet, and we have to incorporate not-Earth into the picture. For instance, we can incorporate nearby Space + Moon and declare it Earth's sphere of influence.

The minute we incorporate not-Earth into the single system of Earth, we do not have unification any longer at any foundational level. The foundation of Earth is Earth and therefore singular, yet the foundation of Earth + Environs is nothing less than Earth + Environs. We cannot make two distinct realities the same as one reality (except inside our brain if we think like a Cyclops).

What folks tend to do is make Space unimportant. They accept Space as a given, and then ignore its importance. That is like having 010 and regard both zeros as one and the same kind. The human brain must be awake and pay attention to the functions that are found in place.

Earth + local Space (including the Moon) are not all fundamentally one and the same.

Fast forward to Einstein, and we can see that he did nothing wrong other than mistaking one kind of zero for the other kind of zero. We can't blame Einstein, because he did not know about the Big Bang yet when he proposed his relativity theories. He based his work solidly on the behavior of matter in regard to gravity. He missed out on the non-gravitational behavior of matter; Einstein did not incorporate anything non-gravitational in his model.

--

God is a word. In science, the word God does not exist. God belongs to a different system; God is not found in the scientific system.

If desired, we can jump to the religious system, but we have to keep it separate from the scientific system.

We can start with God, not a problem, to tell the story of the universe. Yet as soon as God created creation, God was no longer the same as the original God had been. Not even God can create creation from nothing. The process will have cost God something, and the only aspect available for God to use was (parts of) God godself.

So, we must talk God 1.0 and God 2.0 if we want to talk about God.

Good questions, Chian. We are having fun, right? And we can take this as fast and slow as we like.

The scientific answer to the thread question and some scientific comments to some really essential points in other posters’ posts, see in the SS posts on pages 1,2, 3, 9.

If quite briefly – the [absolutely] fundamental, and so completely transcendent/mystic in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, phenomenon/notion “Energy” can be, and is [as also a number of other fundamental, and so equally completely transcendent/mystic in the mainstream phenomena/notions] , rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and more concretely in physics how the phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information” are concretely actualized/act in Matter, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

So more see the SS posts and links in the posts, though note, that in the conception really the phenomenon/notion “Energy” isn’t defined completely, that remains be in depth mystic one, however in the conception and the model it is rigorously clarified how Energy E acts in the concrete rather simple informational system “Matter”:

- first of all for what reason Energy is necessary?, what is “Inertia”, further “inertial mass”, m, and why E=mc2?, why and how objects/events/effects/processes on classical and QM scales are fundamentally different, and why QM is just as it is?, how fundamental Nature forces act, when their fields don’t contain energy?, etc.

Cheers

Chian Fan

Chian,

With this paper linked below, I am taking a scientific stance that is in opposition to how most scientists view a Black Hole. It is a daring step, but I need to take it.

In light of unifying energy, which is the main theme of this thread, the position that is shown is diametrical to how most scientists like things to be (they like to think unification is possible). By focusing on non-unification, one can end up seeing the inverse of most scientists' idea how the universe functions. Instead of unification being possible, unification is shown to be impossible.

The gravitational Black Eye is based on the collective gravity of all masses in a galaxy. Their gravity, but then in combination, causes an enormous gravitational depression to occur in the galactic center.

In other words, there is no invisible mass in this model. The Black Hole model is declared a mistake, though all true scientific data is the same in both models. The depression is basically a collective outcome and all masses are surrounding the center of the galaxy.

I hope you will read it, and comment on it.

Preprint On The Scientific Black Eye

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

Just returned from a trip and unfortunately got hit by covid-19 again, exhausted.

I skimmed through your long reply on May 20, and I apologize for not having the energy at this time to scrutinize your concepts such as "singular number", "placeholder zero and occupier zero", etc. Hopefully I'll be able to understand them soon. ". And concepts such as "Position is cue", "no system can be used to jump to the largest of levels, and then express all there is to express", "the essential aspect of unification: same at a fundamental level", "Einstein did not incorporate anything non-gravitational", etc. I believe that they imply profound ideas that can trigger us to think more deeply, such as "Can a gravitational field equation be complete without taking non-gravitational factors into account? " .

There are quite a few explanations of physics, I think the use of the "Cyclops" analogy is appropriate, although there may be differences of opinion as to the specific aspects. In any case, it is vital that physics understand this. If you look at all the laws of physics and their interpretations, which of them can be completely verified as correct?

If we need to turn to God, God should be there.

Thank you very much for what you have given.

Beast Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Fred-Rick Schermer

On the issue of unifying energy, unfortunately we don't have the same viewpoint. Let's take a step back and analyze the issue in order to dilute the concept of unity. We can ask this question: is it possible to fully describe what nature is? either a unified description or a non-unified description. If a uniform description is not possible, what would a non-uniform description look like?

Novel ideas about black holes are always fascinating. The idea that "The gravitational Black Eye is based on the collective gravity of all masses in a galaxy" is powerful, whether it is correct or not.

I will read your paper, but right now I am too tired to concentrate, allow me to rest for a short time. I hope I can understand it easily，benefit and come to a conclusion.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Chian Fan

Absolutely, Chian, take your time. One of the benefits of our internet life is that we can take in the information per our own needs and time.

Sorry to read we are not in agreement on (the lack of) unity. I stand with the information best declared with the omelet. The minute we see the omelet, that is the scientific confirmation that the egg got cracked. No other evidence needed since it should be obvious. I do not see how an omelet can still contain the unity of the egg somehow.

Hopefully, the Black Eye model is indeed easy for you to see. The Black Hole model is centered around a mass beyond the event horizon. Meanwhile, the Black Eye model is a single outcome, yet based on the gravitational output of all masses in a galaxy.

Thank you, sir. Take your time : - )

Howdy Mikhail N Dulin and Chian Fan,

Your individual emphases on action last July are deeply welcome.

I am reading to catch up after a significant loss, and your focus on action then was very important. "Energy is quantized." Balderdash! Action is quantized! "At a specific frequency" is required to constrain energy to this common, convenient error, sigh.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Sydney Ernest Grimm,

In a post last July you wrote: "If energy is volume, accelerating a particle till it nears the speed of light will result in the “blow up” of the particle to macroscopic proportions (and that is not what we observe)."

What if energy (and mass) is measured by the inverse of volume? Say force is applied to a mass (energy) by its sample of a forcing field. As it accelerates it shortens in the direction of motion and the sample of the field is reduced: it appears more massive. One speculates that at the speed of light it is a plane and it's mass appears "infinite." Energy is in internal structure.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy André Michaud and Stephen I. Ternyik,

In reading your exchanges on the energy levels of an atom last July, say carbon, I did not agree that you had learned different physics. I believe you were writing about different energies, the ionization energy required to remove an electron from the atom (AM) and the energy of the electron in its shell (ST).

An electron, excited by absorption of a photon rises to a shell of higher energy, further from the nucleus. If one proceeds to produce the +6 ion of carbon, removing the outermost electron takes relatively little energy since it has so much energy already and has 5 electrons inside its shell to reduce affect of the nucleus as noted by Stephen I. Ternyik. Removing the next 5 electrons requires more and more energy as given in the table and cited by André Michaud.

Therefore contrasting assertions were made about the different measures of energy of electrons in shells. When roughly considered as possessed electron energy and additional energy needed to remove the electron from the atom, the values are compatible.

I expect you have resolved all this already, but some of us have to look these things up if the resolution is not offered here by those who know.

Happy Trails,

Len